Hurricane Energy Share Discussion Threads

[thegreatgeraldo] 16/3/2021 15:48

As above, Spirit had a lot more skin in the game then whoever put the CPR together......almost as much as the CB holders - & they have a decent chance of getting their cash back.

[ngms27] 16/3/2021 14:02

Sure they have to use HUR's data, the point I'm making is that HUR could control what data they have visibility to so could theoretically skew results.

For instance I think the data around the samples below the current subscribed OWC should have sent off alarm bells as they would have to me with <1% oil in the majority. Did the writer of the CPR have visibility of this?

The September 11th presentation states: All samples below 1,330m TVDSS have only very small percentages of oil.

[thegreatgeraldo] 16/3/2021 13:43

How else can they prepare a report other than to use HUR's data? Drilling a few app wells & doing some test production on their own account probably isn't very practical!!

[ngms27] 16/3/2021 13:40

Where does independent come in to it?

The report has been compiled in accordance with the guidelines on the scope and content of a Competent Person's Report (“CPR”) as set out in the AIM Note for Mining and Oil & Gas Companies.
RPS previously reviewed the Lancaster field as part of the CPR we prepared for Hurricane, dated 18th November 2011, and in updates to this dated 18th April 2013 and 19th November 2013 respectively. This current report is based on data and information available up to 1st April 2017. The effective date for the evaluation is 1st January 2017. RPS understands that there have been no material changes since this date.
The Services have been performed by an RPS team of professional petroleum engineers, geoscientists and economists and is based on the Operator’s data, supplied through Hurricane. All Reserves and Resources definitions and estimates shown in this report are based on the 2007 SPE/AAPG/WPC/SPEE Petroleum Resource Management System (“PRMS”).
Our approach has been to review the Operator’s technical interpretation of their base case geoscience and engineering data for the field for reasonableness and to review the ranges of uncertainty for each parameter around this base case in order to estimate a range of petroleum initially in place and recoverable.

So there is evidently scope to have not seen all the data and it's based on HUR's own interpretation.

[kooba] 16/3/2021 13:40

You're the one with all the answers ! Joking you're just a questions kinda person.

[thegreatgeraldo] 16/3/2021 13:36

Excellent. & your solution to the problem you perceive is what?

[kooba] 16/3/2021 13:31

I have know idea what due diligence Spirit did or what information was supplied to them . I was referring to the independence of CPRs where data and interpretation are supplied for 'independent' review for cash.

[thegreatgeraldo] 16/3/2021 13:20

Spirit bought the HUR line on OWC.....big time. They were also pretty well positioned & motivated to kick some tyres, dontcha think?

[kooba] 16/3/2021 13:17

Do you think one should be confident on looking at the 2017 reports ?

[thegreatgeraldo] 16/3/2021 13:07

Think you're being overly dismissive of CPRs... if you believe CPRs are a waste of time & tell us nothing, maybe you should stop investing in the sector.

PS - The only time you'll get a 100% accurate/correct CPR on an oilfield is when you have a full suite of data....when the field is economically exhausted.

[kooba] 16/3/2021 12:50

Hey I agree ! Got a feeling this will be steered to suit management forcing through a restructuring so erring to the side of caution . But the independence when data and interpretation provided by the company for challenge and a cheque is slightly questionable I guess.

[ngms27] 16/3/2021 12:38

For CPRs they put a finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, agree with the company paying them but make a few minor adjustments to make it look like they've added value.Remember the last CPR called a datapoint suggesting a much shallower OWC erroneous, did they also have the data from flow tests showing lots of water with less than 1% oil below the new OWC. I wonder.As you can see I have little / no faith in true independence of such reports.

[kooba] 16/3/2021 12:26

Was just looking at the 2017 CPR on Lancaster ..again RPS was an independent but gives some idea on the basis of preparation.I wonder if the new lot doing CPR , ERC Equipoise Limited might be nearer the mark based in cosy Croydon not in town...one thing for sure this is likely to be one very conservative appraisal compared to the last one.https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/assets/reserves-and-resourcesIsn't CPR about bringing back from the dead?

[thegreatgeraldo] 16/3/2021 11:40

I may be wrong, but think HUR put their case for reserves & contingent stuff...using seismic & production data to back up their case & in theory whoever is doing the CPR casts a critical eye over it & comes up with a more independent & perhaps more conservative view

PS It would surprise me if Mr(s) CPR suggested a deeper OWC than HUR seem to have settled on

[canetois] 16/3/2021 11:29

Does anyone know how this CPR is undertaken. Do they actually visit the acreage and poke around with a long stick for a while or is the result found from disecting a 200 year old maritime map in a nice cosy office somewhere in London?

[pensioner2] 16/3/2021 11:26

The consistency IS the negativity, kooba. I'm not involved here but I've been amazed at the relentless trolling of ngms on this stock. It's almost as if it's become personal with him/her. Very unwise for mental health imo.

[kooba] 16/3/2021 11:24

To know what you know and what you do not know, that is true knowledge.Confucius

[thegreatgeraldo] 16/3/2021 11:17

Confuscious say,

.. "When the mud comes over the top of yer wellies, maybe you should consider your position..."

[kooba] 16/3/2021 11:12

There's lots of new data coming up that should enable us not having to make wild guesses away from the previously available information going forward ..how refreshing.To say you think they will try to maintain production at previous stable levels big shout though...but then are you saying that they have not managed to do that? There seems not consistency in your negativity.

[ngms27] 16/3/2021 10:52

No, I've said I think they will try and maintain 11-12k bopd as long as is possible with increasing water cut to maximise return in the shorter term at the detriment to longer term and ultimate recovery without EOR techniques.

Whether that's still the case and what the current water cut is we will find out but I don't think the latest offload fits with 12k bopd but might with 11k bopd or 10k bopd.

We also don't know what downtime if any they have had.

The next RNS will be interesting one way or another as will the OGA update on the 1st April if it comes sooner.

[kooba] 16/3/2021 10:14

But you are saying you think production holding up at 11000-12000 bopd ( obviously before a calamitous collapse) so if it is now 11000bopd (unlikely) and was at 12000bopb for much of the production period how do you square your reckoning that offload will be 420k ? So maybe it will be a larger offload..but your maths ain't holding up one way or another.

[ngms27] 16/3/2021 09:36

Do the maths. At 12k bopd the offload would be the biggest ever. Is that likely?

So punk do you feel lucky?

[kooba] 16/3/2021 08:05

Week ago..you."Yeah right. Average offload has been closer to 420k barrels so nearer 10k bopd IMHO"So you were projecting an average of 10000bopd over the production period when we know that at the beginning of this period production was stable at just over 12000bopd. Therefore to have averaged 10000bopd as you suggest production would have sunk well below 10000bopd.What am i missing in your production analysis?

[ngms27] 16/3/2021 07:49

No kooba, that was the maths on 41 days between offloads.

[kooba] 16/3/2021 07:24

Not impossible but since CA have been advocating buying bonds for quite some time back to sept when the bonds were in the 30s might rather smack of front running their messaging if they start buying now.Would think quite frustrating why the board failed to respond to proposal when they have been sitting on a growing pile of cash doing nothing..cant imagine the bondholders could have an argument against reducing the outstanding debt by open market purchases as it would improve ability of company to repay those not selling in full?In terms of action i would imagine CA need up to date information on reserves and production which should be forthcoming over the next few weeks before challenging the board.Final results were out this week last year but imagine they will want to synchronise news flow so could be out end of month with CPR.Think the board are out of their depth here and have no clear plan to create shareholder value , the CEO might well have the operational ability but I worry is woefully short of corporate and restructuring nouse to deliver an acceptable restructuring deal.Many of the NEDs and Chair oversaw the Trice regime which questions their ability to challenge effectively.