Hurricane Energy Share Discussion Threads

[excell1] 06/1/2020 14:35

Interesting post on LSE from el19


Having established their (supposed) intellectual ‘credibility’ over a period with positive posts…now we’re getting close to eps thumbs-up, word on the street is that a certain ‘fool’, now does what he was always paid for and there to do…keep the share price as low as poss for a B loomin’ P artner. There isn’t a prob with watercut, and Lanc testing is progressing fine.

[telbap] 06/1/2020 14:34

Possibly there is simply tooMuch noise and way, way too many agendas going on here. Why would a company with all those positive aspects, who are producing oil at c13k bopd with a farm in major, with money (lots of money) in the bank and wells with world class PI indexes be trading at an inverse direction to Brent???? Onassis in a post card please.

[ngms27] 06/1/2020 14:33

Re Warwick West it's worth noting Lancaster well 4 was drilled with different mud composition to all subsequent wells so I'd argue that the comparison you are making has no validity.Well 4 was heavily skinned due to mud, Warwick West failed for totally different reasons.

[sentimentrules] 06/1/2020 14:29

Well all these prices get tested. Worth noting but can't be assessed or ordered today really

Got to assess when price at your noted levels. May still be distribution weighted at them

[porrohmahnn] 06/1/2020 14:17

Production averaged 13,300 bopd in 2019, not 12,500, according to the RNS on 13 December. This is 21% above the forecast of 11,000 bopd for 2019. The productivity indexes, which were already "world class" during DST testing, were significantly higher at the time of first oil.

I recently created a Wikipedia article summarising some aspects of the Lancaster oilfield. Here are some noteworthy points;

"Each of the two production wells has flowed at more than 16,500 barrels (2,620 m3) of oil per day without the need for ESP assistance. The natural flow rates are 211% higher than previous tests for the 205/21a-6 well and 153% higher than previous tests for 205/21a-7Z.

Well 205/21a-6 has demonstrated a PI of 205 stb/psi/d (29.3% above previous tests) and well 205/21a-7Z has demonstrated a PI of 190 stb/psi/d (28.1% above previous tests)."

Some other points worth remembering;

The flow rate on Warwick West was almost identical to Hurricane's first well (205/21a-4) on Lancaster.

The flow rates on Lincoln Crestal were similar to the 205/21a-6 well drilled on Lancaster in 2014 which is now flowing at much higher rates having been cleaned up and tied back to the Aoka Mizu.

I accept that there remain risks and uncertainties but there is a lot of good news which is being overlooked.

[superbobtaylor] 06/1/2020 14:15

If we can leave the water cut (non) issue for a while. If it's true we have had our chips. Anyone reading this board is now very well informed so no real point rehashing infinitum.

What I am wondering is what the drill programme for 2020 and beyond now looks like? The one shown above in the lovely chart is now up in smoke, with regards to the GWA elements at least. My understanding is that HUR now have to drill 2 x vertical wells to conclusively establish oil/water contact on Lancaster and Lincoln. I am wondering:

1. Why this new requirement for the vertical wells? What has changed?
2. Who is paying for the Lincoln well - HUR, Spirit or 50/50?
3. Can we bring any of the other work forward now there won't be 3x GWA production wells to plan and pay for? Specifically the gas export solution.
4. When will we know if HUR will drill a further Lancaster production well? Without the gas export solution it won’t make a difference with respect to output but you have to feel it would be very important that this well is shown to be a decent producer.

By my reckoning HUR should comfortably have funds to pay for all of the above from existing reserves and production.

Any comment/answers from you knowledgeable bunch would be much appreciated!

SBT [very long..... :-( ]

[m5] 06/1/2020 14:07

Bad news? I don't thinks so. The share price is not behaving any differently than it has been for the last few months. It is moving between 30-34p, that is the range we are in now.

[whitegold1] 06/1/2020 13:51

Bad fall today ... expect some negative news ...stuck around the 30.s now. Who woukd.ve Adam and Eved it pre new drill programme.

[idleduck] 06/1/2020 13:24

The author of the Energy Voice piece on Hurricane will take a very dim view of the kind of C&P nonsense above without attribution!

[hazydaisy] 06/1/2020 13:23

Aoka Mizu,

[amaretto1] 06/1/2020 13:01

The powers that be want this down !

[soilderboy] 06/1/2020 12:50

Brent 69.31.Will maybe hit $70 Not going to make a difference to HUR share price bt the look of things.

[tournesol] 06/1/2020 12:32

Step-one

No. It's a copy and paste from the article linked above without attribution or acknowledgement.

Which is not good practice

[stepone68] 06/1/2020 12:17

Is that a copy-and-paste from the article linked above, damac?

[amaretto1] 06/1/2020 12:05

Going to test 29 ..... again again again

[saucepan] 06/1/2020 12:01

There is an argument that the combined total of all of the available knowledge and sentiment of insiders, institutions, and private investors is reflected in the chart.

The chart looks absolutely awful. There is no beating about the bush in that regard.

(No position currently)

[tournesol] 06/1/2020 11:51

Steve73

You've been a bit quiet lately - are you still here? What is your take on the recent discussion?

T

[tournesol] 06/1/2020 11:39

NGMS27

The technical report is available here: hxxp://london.spe.org/resources/publications1/new-item3

That link is broken - it just takes you to a high level page which does not identify the report you seem to be talking about.

Please provide more information that would enable others to find the report you are talking about.

T

[amaretto1] 06/1/2020 11:31

US futures down 500 :-(

[flyinghorse1] 06/1/2020 11:00

I don’t necessarily think an active aquifer is a bad thing- under normal solution gas drive recovery would be 9-14% of Stoiip.
Having an aquifer will increase recovery factor to 20-35% Stoiip. The trick is avoiding aquifer influx thru well placement.
Harding - a bp reservoir was oil rim and gas and water would cone in and it’s managed via well rates & placement.

It’s about well placement in the structure and that’s where FB is harder. We may need a few more wells but I don’t see it a shut up shop & go home.

Lack of pressure decline means it’s either a vast structure, or aquifer is maintaining pressure ( good) , or a combination of both.

Gravitationally water is heavier than oil and also has no associated gas , so on natural flow gross flow rates will drop as water cut increases( pressure has to vertically push oil up to process). This type of flow will likely be modelled in a nodal analysis model.

One recent example is PTAL and use of horizontal wells and inflow devices to reduce water coning. The fields original-wells vertical and cut water fast, new wells high on structure don’t ( as yet) cut water and have high rates.

You can’t have your cake and eat it regarding recovery factor. If we had no pressure support ( from water) rates would be plummeting anyway in time, and the cost to maintain production by providing reservoir pressure support expensive ( injection wells/ artificial lift).

Time will tell

[hashertu] 06/1/2020 10:57

Out of interest:
P98, tech report Feb 2014. Combined fault 1/2 flow test, inclined well 4z. 48/64 choke.
What is the depth at which water flows in?