Hurricane Energy Share Discussion Threads

[whitedukejay] 04/2/2021 00:49

Mr Bitcoin posts at 01.07 in the morning ,01.43 Mr T responds to his post 02.24 Pro responds to his post ,WTF is it with non/ex holders and this share ,i know they are bitter and twisted at their losses but come on get a grip folks and concentrate your energy on something you might gain from and not something you hope others will accept your same fate from, i pity the fool .a psychiatrist would be in his element following this board. SOOOO Sad. GLA

[leoneobull] 03/2/2021 20:13

Thanks T....appreciated

[tournesol] 03/2/2021 19:38

Leo

"Tcarter...a dangerous ramper? That's Dr Trice, surely? I didn't claim we had billions of barrels of oil and downgrade the reserves by 90%, HUR did. I know many would like to blame others for the geological misfortune or incompetence of the HUR BOD! But precisely what ramping crime am I guilty of now? Being vaguely optimistic against the potential doomsday scenario?"


I can't find the post to which this is a reply but it sounds like somebody has had a go at you.

That accusation/criticism is ludicrous. I think you are over-optimistic and I disagree with much/mpst of what you say but it's unfair/unreasonable to characterise you as a ramper. Ignore the attack. I've recc'd your post.

T

[thegreatgeraldo] 03/2/2021 18:04

Wonder if Crystal Amber have seen that pres! ;-#)))

[ngms27] 03/2/2021 17:55

Sorry, mixed up with 7z!

Look at slide 11 on the 11/9/2020 presentation.

Sample from well 7 @ just over 1300m close to 100% oil saturation
Sample from well 7 just below 1330m approx 1% oil saturation
A further 7 samples from well 7 below 1330m all had less than 4% oil saturation, most less than 1%

Totally and utterly damning.

From the CPR:
The PLT runs demonstrated that 100% of flow came from a short 8m interval (1,368-1,376 m MD) near the top of the open hole section.
As a result, no flow was established from the rest of the well, with a clear oil-brine interface identified at 1376.3 m MD (from the PLT flowing passes).

There's the original OWC but I believe they thought it was a zone of perched water.

[thegreatgeraldo] 03/2/2021 17:21

ngms27
3 Feb '21 - 17:07 - 23302 of 23303
0 0 0
It was just the great PI, production from the heel and not the toe and sufficient distance from the OWC that flattered to deceive at that point.

....Not really, the 205/21a-7 Pilot Well was a broadly vertical well, largely designed to find the OWC & sample the aquifer!

[leoneobull] 03/2/2021 17:12

Tcarter...a dangerous ramper? That's Dr Trice, surely? I didn't claim we had billions of barrels of oil and downgrade the reserves by 90%, HUR did. I know many would like to blame others for the geological misfortune or incompetence of the HUR BOD! But precisely what ramping crime am I guilty of now? Being vaguely optimistic against the potential doomsday scenario?

[ngms27] 03/2/2021 17:07

It was just the great PI, production from the heel and not the toe and sufficient distance from the OWC that flattered to deceive at that point.

[mrwaite] 03/2/2021 16:49

It is surprisingly incompetent imo that Dr Trice continued to publish papers (Lyell papers, RGS etc) long long after those very low oil saturations below 1380m were known to him and the Company. Those papers, over the names of Trice and other Company employees, have not been withdrawn and no corrections issued as far as I now.

[ngms27] 03/2/2021 16:05

I'll tell you how they got it wrong. Confirmation Bias.

They did everything to make the data fit Dr T's models rather than be objective. Even the CPR disregarded a data point that suggested a much shallower OWC.

How for example can every well core taken below 1380m have very low oil saturation? the vast majority below 1%.

To me that information is damming and was only released on the 11/9/2020.

[porrohmahnn] 03/2/2021 15:43

thegreatgeraldo, if so, how did Hurricane get it so wrong? The various exploration, appraisal and production wells indicated a much lower OWC and a huge productivity index. What were they "seeing"? Despite reading the available official data, I haven't found a clear, concise explanation.

[ngms27] 03/2/2021 15:27

tgg exactly. I saw a paper from a reservoir engineer who provided the maths around water coning from the underlying aquifer even if there were large vertical fractures straight from the well bore to the aquifer. i.e. Worse case scenario.

He suggested for water to cone the aquifer had to be a maximum of 120m lower than the well bore. This was early last year when water had started to break through on well 7z.

That makes it pretty damned clear why any development of Lincoln using well 14 as-is would likely fail and why well 6 on Lancaster is getting uncomfortable close to the OWC. The ESP effectively extends the pressure differential along the well bore so fluids are pulled from a greater section. This explains why the water cut has gone down from an average of 29% in November as individual highly productive fractures are being 'sucked' less so drawing up less water.

However the OWC is still getting shallower and the day of reckoning moves ever closer, just has a stay of execution for now.

[thegreatgeraldo] 03/2/2021 15:07

Porrohmahnn

Re the fractures, I think a mango hedgehog gives a reasonable analogy.... so you've got connectivity going vertically & horizonatally, albeit not as uniform as my mango.

The basic problem with Lancs wasn't the nature of the fractures, but simply that the water aquuifer was much higher than they planned for, hence the water cut problem

[porrohmahnn] 03/2/2021 15:04

That is undoubtedly a challenge. Some degree of certainty would be required to justify the necessary investments but it was always the objective of the EPS to provide the data to prove or disprove the CPRs.

[ngms27] 03/2/2021 14:58

Here lies the rub:
It might just mean that more exploration and a different production technique will be needed.

Pray tell where the monies will come from without wiping out current equity?

[laserdisc] 03/2/2021 14:44

Greatgeraldo yes tanker in port from 13.29pm ...i have given 1hr for connecting and safety checks

[thegreatgeraldo] 03/2/2021 14:41

post 23288

....If they're planning a ST of well 14 or completing it as a producer, ahead of laying a pipeline, surely they should have told Mr Market? No real need to RNS a P&A

[pro_s2009] 03/2/2021 14:40

Shorts closing is having a great effect on the share price..............not

[andysarah] 03/2/2021 14:37

Post 32385
If you check the O.G.A. site you will see they offered the partners a field determination some while back for this well. A response generally has to be received within 60 days although this was relaxed due to the pandemic. That is some rig for a P&A contract?

[thegreatgeraldo] 03/2/2021 14:37

Laserdisc
3 Feb '21 - 14:32 - 23286 of 23286
0 0 0
offload started

..Assume you mean the crude, but looking at the share price graph above, it could be the pump & dump crew!

[laserdisc] 03/2/2021 14:32

offload started