Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to Fluke,barchid,Howyoudoin,servodude,tjh290633, for Donating to support the site

Hurricane Energy (HUR)

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3918
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 3043 times
Been thanked: 914 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#252762

Postby dspp » September 19th, 2019, 8:35 pm

dspp wrote:New paper out, link spotted courtesy Carcosa:

https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/downloa ... ce/480/258

An integrated approach for fractured basement characterization: the Lancaster Field, a case study in the UK
Daniel A. Bonter* & Robert Trice
..
Received 24 October 2018; revised 18 July 2019; accepted 26 July 2019


Note July revision dates ........

dspp


I've had a chance to read this, and very straightforward it is too, both as a paper and as a description of their workflow and issues. There is clearly a good team on the job.

They do appear to have a continuum fracture sizes ranging from micro-fractures through joints to large aperture fault/fracture zones, which is as we have been led to believe. Overall it is exhibiting the classic dual porosity response. The two producer wells seem (my tally) to be encountering somewhere between 10-20 of the larger vertically oriented fault/fracture zones, and given the geometry and spacing some of these are shared - so perhaps 10 each (?). They have so far mapped approx 740 faults from top seismic and (this is work in progress, suggesting - as is alluded to in the paper - considerable mandraulic aspects) these are so far less well mapped to the east side of Lancaster (and not at all in Halifax one guesses).

So say targetting 20 per producer and say 800 in toto (ignoring Halifax) then that would be 40 wells per field. That sounds about right to empty a 500 mln bbl STOIIP field in a reasonable time at a reasonable recovery fraction. That means plateau production of 400,000 bbl/day from Lancaster alone. That is (say) three 120,000bbl/day FPSO units. So starting with one you need to place it sensibly so as to leave decent acreage for the subsequent second or third floater and its associated wells.

They comment that the low aquifer case can be pretty much discounted.

"In fact, there is no difference between the two and by using a high-resolution simulator the static model can be taken straight through to dynamic simulation with no alterations or upscaling." Wow. I can see the necessity/desirability to do so, but the ability to do so is phenomenal. Roll on putting the Tesla HW 3.0 into this sort of environment, both for semi-automated feature identification, and for the reseng modelling. It really is a different world these days.

===

Turning to something that is not in this paper.

So far people have been using the term below structural close to refer to the issues with the poroperm encountered in WD. Elsewhere I note that the very attractive properties of the Lancaster rock is associated with its sub aerial nature, at least for long periods of its history. I do wonder at what depth in Lancaster that assumption breaks down. Similarly at what depth does it break down, or hold true, in Warwick and Lincoln, and maybe Halifax. I appreciate that the risk-averse around here will not be keen to drill horizontal appraisal wells in the deeper reservoir, but at some time (pre-monetisation/exit) it will be necessary to do so if only to withstand people like me saying "everything deeper than a producing well can be discarded in valuation discussions".

As an aside I have commented before that there is not much public domain freebie info on Clair basement. I have previously speculated that maybe biodegradation could be an issue in Clair basement. I now also wonder if Clair basement has been as well weathered - and left in that state - or whether it too suffers from WD's poor poroperm. If so, then value to BP of the HUR knowledge base will be limited, and so that card - in respect of Clair - will not be as valuable to HUR in any discussions with BP.

===

It is worth reading.

regards, dspp

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3918
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 3043 times
Been thanked: 914 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#252814

Postby dspp » September 20th, 2019, 8:53 am

20 September 2019 Hurricane Energy plc Half-year Results 2019

Hurricane Energy plc, the UK based oil and gas company focused on hydrocarbon resources in naturally fractured basement reservoirs, is pleased to provide its 2019 interim report and half-year results for the period ended 30 June 2019.


Dr Robert Trice, Chief Executive of Hurricane, commented:

"I am delighted to announce our half year results for 2019, Hurricane's first financials to include revenue. The Lancaster Early Production System is the first phase of development of our significant Rona Ridge assets. Achieving first oil on schedule and on budget is a remarkable achievement and a huge credit to our operating team, our partners and contractors.

"Since first oil, Hurricane has sold over 1.6 million barrels of oil across four cargoes and Lancaster has been producing at an average of 14,100 barrels of oil per day. The operating cash flow that the EPS is delivering provides Hurricane with greater control of our future as we seek to deliver growth in reserves and production across all of our Rona Ridge assets.

"Whilst the financial security gained from production is crucial, the ultimate goal of the Lancaster Early Production System is to improve our understanding of the reservoir to aid planning of future phases of development of Hurricane's significant Rona Ridge resource. Throughout the start-up phase and following first oil, the reservoir has performed at the higher end of expectations. However, we remain cognisant that it will take at least six months of steady state production before we are able to evaluate the validity of our reservoir model.

"Following the successful Lincoln Crestal well, we look forward to continuing with our Greater Warwick Area work programme with our partners Spirit Energy. This programme is designed to enable us to obtain the necessary reservoir data from across the GWA in order to allow the partnership to work towards an initial phase of full field development on the Greater Warwick Area."




2019 Interim results summary

Financial results

· The Group recognised revenue for the first time relating to a single cargo of crude oil that was sold in the period. This resulted in the Group recording an operating profit of $1.2 million (H1 2018: operating loss of $4.7 million).

· The Group recorded a loss after tax for the first half of 2019 of $21.2 million (H1 2018: $75.1 million). This loss includes a non-cash fair value loss on the embedded derivative element of the Convertible Bond of $23.5 million.

· As at 30 June 2019, the Group had an unrestricted cash position of $81.4 million (31 December 2018: $83.0 million).

Operational developments - Greater Lancaster Area

· Lancaster Early Production System first oil achieved on 4 June 2019, following introduction of hydrocarbons on 11 May 2019

· Lancaster has been producing at an average of approximately 14,100 barrels of oil per day from first oil to latest lifting (completed on 17 September 2019)

· Hurricane has sold over 1.6 million barrels of oil across four cargoes to date

· Overall system availability on the Lancaster Early Production System has exceeded long-term guidance of 85%

Operational developments - Greater Warwick Area

· Three well 2019 drilling campaign being carried out in partnership with Spirit Energy using the Transocean Leader semisubmersible rig

· 'Lincoln Crestal' well (205/26b-14)

o Drilled to a total depth of 1,780m TVDSS, including a 720 m horizontal section of fractured basement reservoir and successfully flow tested

o Maximum stable flow rate of c. 9,800 stb/d on electrical submersible pumps, 4,682 stb/d under natural conditions

o Lincoln confirmed to contain light, 43° API oil

· 'Warwick Deep' well (205/26b-13Z)

o Drilled to a total depth of 1,964 m TVDSS, including a 712 m horizontal section of fractured basement reservoir

o Initial analysis indicates that the well intersected a poorly connected section of the fracture network - it did not flow at commercial rates, producing a mixture of drilling brine, water, oil and gas, and so was plugged and abandoned

o Encountered oil shows, with gas chromatography indicating light oil and a DST oil sample which laboratory measurements indicate to be a light oil of 40°

Outlook

· Lancaster Early Production System 2019 full year production guidance of over 2.8 million barrels (approx. 12,500 bopd from first oil)

· Warwick West, third well in 2019 Greater Warwick Area programme, due to be spudded shortly

· Long lead items for Greater Warwick Area 2020 well programme have been ordered, rig contract expected to be signed shortly

READ THE LINK FOR MUCH MORE DETAIL !!

https://ir.q4europe.com/Solutions/Hurri ... d=14451277

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3918
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 3043 times
Been thanked: 914 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#252844

Postby dspp » September 20th, 2019, 10:17 am

Two updated presentations here

https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/investors/presentations

H1 2019

Corp Q3 2019

dspp

Carcosa
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 172
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 109 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#252878

Postby Carcosa » September 20th, 2019, 11:53 am

Corp Q3 2019


That was uploaded last July. I guess we can expect the Q4 presentation to be uploaded around early October

FabianBjornseth
Posts: 39
Joined: July 6th, 2018, 10:41 pm
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#253004

Postby FabianBjornseth » September 21st, 2019, 7:31 am

We have gone to great lengths to explain why we do not expect to see coned aquifer water during the lifetime of the EPS, under our base case. This is our continuing expectation. The perched, or stranded, water we have experienced is consistent with our reservoir model and since our capital markets day presentation this interpretation has been reinforced by the Company's technical work. Notwithstanding the increase in aggregate perched water production to a sustained rate of approximately 7.5%, water cut remains within expected ranges and is not impacting oil production levels or the cost of production.

Now that both flowlines are in operation again, we can see that production from the -6 well continues to be of dry oil. Given the proximity of the wells and strong interference between them, this is supportive of a stranded pocket of water being intersected by the -7Z well. Hurricane's analysis suggests that current production is only coming from a relatively short section of the borehole in the vicinity of the heel in each well. Over time, fractures further along each well bore are expected to contribute to production, reducing the impact of any individual water-bearing fracture.


Assuming the same liquid rates from both wells, the 7Z well has a water cut of 15%. While it's not high enough to impact production, it's not insignificant either, and it has so far increased over time. Water production will have to be accounted for in an FFD scenario regardless, so it might not be a significant issue. It would be more of a concern if the water rate increases to the point where you question the STOIIP.

It's interesting that after 3 months only the heel section of the wells are apparently contributing. If this behavior continues indicating a poor clean-up, reservoir liners with ICDs and packers might be attempted in future production wells.

The company chose not to release information on the productivity index of the Lincoln well. They of course
have this information, so it seems to be a departure from the previous communication strategy. It would also have been possible to release pressure data from the GLA wells for the first three months of production, but it seems we will not see this until the CMD in Q1 2020.

Overall progress seems to be going swimmingly, especially considering the level of ambition. There are many exciting growth milestones in the next 18 months, that appear to be almost fully within their control.

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3918
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 3043 times
Been thanked: 914 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#253022

Postby dspp » September 21st, 2019, 9:51 am

FabianBjornseth wrote:
We have gone to great lengths to explain why we do not expect to see coned aquifer water during the lifetime of the EPS, under our base case. This is our continuing expectation. The perched, or stranded, water we have experienced is consistent with our reservoir model and since our capital markets day presentation this interpretation has been reinforced by the Company's technical work. Notwithstanding the increase in aggregate perched water production to a sustained rate of approximately 7.5%, water cut remains within expected ranges and is not impacting oil production levels or the cost of production.

Now that both flowlines are in operation again, we can see that production from the -6 well continues to be of dry oil. Given the proximity of the wells and strong interference between them, this is supportive of a stranded pocket of water being intersected by the -7Z well. Hurricane's analysis suggests that current production is only coming from a relatively short section of the borehole in the vicinity of the heel in each well. Over time, fractures further along each well bore are expected to contribute to production, reducing the impact of any individual water-bearing fracture.


Assuming the same liquid rates from both wells, the 7Z well has a water cut of 15%. While it's not high enough to impact production, it's not insignificant either, and it has so far increased over time. Water production will have to be accounted for in an FFD scenario regardless, so it might not be a significant issue. It would be more of a concern if the water rate increases to the point where you question the STOIIP.

It's interesting that after 3 months only the heel section of the wells are apparently contributing. If this behavior continues indicating a poor clean-up, reservoir liners with ICDs and packers might be attempted in future production wells.

The company chose not to release information on the productivity index of the Lincoln well. They of course
have this information, so it seems to be a departure from the previous communication strategy. It would also have been possible to release pressure data from the GLA wells for the first three months of production, but it seems we will not see this until the CMD in Q1 2020.

Overall progress seems to be going swimmingly, especially considering the level of ambition. There are many exciting growth milestones in the next 18 months, that appear to be almost fully within their control.


Fully agree.

Also I don't think they have released any reservoir chemistry information regarding any signature differentiation in the aquifer water vs the perched/trapped water. If there is differentiation that would help in understanding whether the -7Z well is only seeing perched/trapped, or also sucking from the aquifer. Equally if there is no difference then it would be helpful if they could say so, so that we could set that signature to one side as being unhelpful.

I think they are being as coy as they can for as long as they can, as one of the few defences they have against a premature low-ball takeover and/or farm-in offer. Watching the chatter one can see that there are quite a lot of folk who would happily sell out for just 10-20% premium. That is especially so given Kerogen's signalling which has to call Kerogen's reliability as a defence in this respect into doubt. We of course know that CA would sell their own granny for very little premium so they are of no use in this respect.

regards, dspp

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3918
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 3043 times
Been thanked: 914 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#254847

Postby dspp » September 30th, 2019, 11:13 am

TANKER UPLIFTS - updated listing, note HUR's oil sales are as of date of lift, not date of offload at a refinery. It is 38 API (*1).

#0, 11 May 2019, real first oil into AM FPSO
#00, 4 June 2019 (first oil per RNS, i.e. simultaneous flow from both wells for 72-hours iaw contractual definition)
#1, approx 18 June 2019, 47,389 tons =356,429 bbls @ approx 39 days open-up to lift, so approx 9k bopd (AMUNDSEN SPIRIT), cum = 356,429 bbls
#2, approx 21 July 2019, 56,000 tons = 455,000 bbls @ approx 32 days lift-to-lift, so approx 14k bopd (PETRO ATLANTIC), cum = 811,429 bbls
#3, approx 17 Aug 2019, 60,595 tons = 456,280 bbls @ approx 28 days lift-to-lift, so approx 16k bopd (*2) (AMUNDSEN SPIRIT), cum = 1,267,709 bbls
#4, approx 16 Sep 2019, 61,753 tons = 465,000 bbls @ approx 31 days lift-to-lift, so approx 15k bopd (*3) (NAVION OCEANIA), cum = 1, 732,709 bbls

*1 : for 38 API I get 56,000mt = 421,894 bbls, i.e. 7.53 bbls/mt, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API_gravity however there are a variety of different conversions being used so there is a discrepancy somewhere.

*2: AIS draft increase from 9.2m unloaded to 11m loaded. Actual draft on Rotterdam departure after unload was fwd 7.20 meters and aft 9.20 (which is the AIS unloaded max draft state), though we do not know how much ballast compensation is in play. Actual load of 60.5kt corresponds to avge draft per londoner7 tanker calcs. However if trim constant then max unloaded to max loaded is a good indication. IF trim constant.

*3 : no good data on lifted volume available so I have assumed 15kbopd x 31d = 465,000 bbls

(as always thanks to Amaja, divecentre, laserdisc, planetgong, londoner7, bountyhunter, etc)

regards, dspp

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3918
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 3043 times
Been thanked: 914 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#255100

Postby dspp » October 1st, 2019, 11:29 am

Q3 presentation up
https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/applica ... Q_2019.pdf

I only think I saw piece of new info in this, on slide 16:

"205/21a-7z well : 8% water cut which arrived early is not rate dependent and is consequently interpreted as trapped/perched water"

If it is not rate-dependent then a) I would tend to agree with them, and b) at least this bit of the fracture network is not connected to the 205/21a-6 well, i.e. there is reserves associated with one well that could not have been accessed by the other well. A bit like a housing estate with a rabbit-warren of cul-de-sacs so that sometimes you have to go all the way around the outside just to get to the houses one street over.

- dspp

Carcosa
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 172
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 109 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#255102

Postby Carcosa » October 1st, 2019, 11:38 am

Its been there for several months...
Q4 is awaited...

We had the same conversation on this board on 20th September

You might want to use something like https://changetower.com/ to be alerted to a change.

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3918
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 3043 times
Been thanked: 914 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#255103

Postby dspp » October 1st, 2019, 11:43 am

Carcosa wrote:Its been there for several months...
Q4 is awaited...

We had the same conversation on this board on 20th September

You might want to use something like https://changetower.com/ to be alerted to a change.


I'm quite capable of forgetting where I put my car keys, let alone this stuff, so thank you C. That explains why I found so little in it that I had not read before ........ :) dspp

Carcosa
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 172
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 109 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#255627

Postby Carcosa » October 3rd, 2019, 1:58 pm

dspp (and others)

A new technical presentation uploaded onto the website today:

Trice, R. Hiorth, C. Holdsworth, R. 2019. Fractured basement play development on the UK and Norwegian rifted margins. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 495 https://doi.org/10.1144/SP495-2018-174

(Yes I know it's dated 24th September, but was uploaded today)

The Information is way above my pay grade to understand.

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3918
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 3043 times
Been thanked: 914 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#255882

Postby dspp » October 4th, 2019, 3:02 pm

Carcosa wrote:dspp (and others)

A new technical presentation uploaded onto the website today:

Trice, R. Hiorth, C. Holdsworth, R. 2019. Fractured basement play development on the UK and Norwegian rifted margins. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 495 https://doi.org/10.1144/SP495-2018-174

(Yes I know it's dated 24th September, but was uploaded today)

The Information is way above my pay grade to understand.


Thanks Carcosa. I guess its my turn to say we've seen this one before, though it took me a while to find it, see (viewtopic.php?p=239285#p239285) looks like some form of preprint was there earlier:

***************
Manuscript version: Accepted Manuscript
This is a PDF of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. The manuscript will undergo copyediting,
typesetting and correction before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may
be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the book series pertain.
Although reasonable efforts have been made to obtain all necessary permissions from third parties to include their
copyrighted content within this article, their full citation and copyright line may not be present in this Accepted Manuscript
version. Before using any content from this article, please refer to the Version of Record once published for full citation and
copyright details, as permissions may be required.
Accepted Manuscript
Geological Society, London, Special Publications
Fractured basement play development on the UK and Norwegian rifted margins
Robert Trice, Cecilie Hiorth & Robert Holdsworth
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1144/SP495-18-174
Received 30 October 2018
Revised 1 April 2019
Accepted 1 May 2019
© 2019 The Author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Published by The Geological Society of London. Publishing disclaimer: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/pub_ethics
To cite this article, please follow the guidance at https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/onlinefirst#how-to-cite
*******************


When I read it, and other stuff, I am struck by how unique each FB reservoir is. Whilst of course all reservoirs are unique, at least one can view them as being examples of types from the suite of options in clastics & carbonates. In contrast the pathways by which an FB reservoir can come to be appear to be so much more diverse that there is - as yet - very little commonality. That may be because we've not yet done enough 'stamp collecting', but it undoubtedly also means people (acquirers !) are rightly cautious in evaluating & developing & valuing them due to their individual uniqueness and scope for 'gotchas'. I am also struck by how good Rona Ridge is compared to many of the ones that have been located so far, though WD gives some considerable food for thought in that respect. Quite where is the ODT/WUT effective interface from a produceability & reserves perspective ? and how does that translate from Warwick to Lincoln, and from Warwick to Lancaster/Halifax ? mmmmmmmmmm..........

regards, dspp

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3918
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 3043 times
Been thanked: 914 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#256365

Postby dspp » October 7th, 2019, 3:33 pm

Per oldpro on LSE there will be institutional & broker presentations starting tomorrow in UK & EU. If so this would account for the Q4 Corporate Presentation being a few days late on HUR's website.

There is some leg being shown by Premier with respect to hooking up some of Lincoln to the Solan facility. In this respect I think the distance is achievable, but the key issues (apart from financial haggling and operational/organisational complexity) would be the gas handling. I am assuming that Premier are interested because they are producing well below their nominal capacity of 24,000 bopd, 30,000 bpd gross liquids. At a certain throughput Solan goes fuel gas deficient, until then it flares any excess because gas export tieback was uneconomic. If no debottlenecking were to occur then the ullage might (depending on OGA view) be flareable. If however they were to debottleneck then a further WOSPS tie-in for gas disposal would be required, which would also require a small compressor, and might necessitate a shift from NUI to attended operation. Given the timescales from FID (2021) on Lincoln + Warwick to likely first oil (? 2024) one has to wonder if accelerating (say) 20,000 bopd of ullage use (how much is Solan really producing - last was 4100 bopd*) for 3-4 years is worth the distraction. But information gathering has a value as well.

So alternatively one could take the view that if LinWar development pace slows down and needs derisking, then utilising Solan becomes more attactive. At 4,100 bopd one has to wonder if that point has already been reached for Solan - indeed it most likely has since they are needing to drill a third producer. In which case it might be easiest for Spirit/HUR to play hard ball and acquire the uneconomic Solan and reuse it as a dedicated EPS for Lincoln. That would get a second processing facility and a second tanker export point. I wonder if it is possible to debottleneck Solan to 40k oil, in which case it would be a tad more attractive. I wonder what the real constraints are, especially in the two separators.

The fastest & shortest way to tie a Lincoln well in would be to daisy-chain across a closed-in Solan well.

Dropping Strathmore back into tahe ring looks to have been a sensible decision. It is basically forcing Premier to make a move to drill it, and/or more Solan wells, bleeding cash each time, before admitting they need to decommission Solan. At which point anyone who can tke Solan off their hands (thereby deferring the decommissioning expenses) might get a very cheap deal. I like deals where Premier pays HUR to take Solan off Premier's hands for that deferment gain ...

Done quickly like this it could bring Lincoln + Lancaster to be 80,000 bopd by end 2020 if they got their skates on.

Some links are:

https://www.offshore-technology.com/pro ... th-sea-uk/
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/n ... nes-plans/
http://www.premier-oil.com/premieroil/d ... -field.pdf
https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SPE-186161-MS
https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/media/535 ... -final.pdf
http://www.premier-oil.com/premieroil/d ... B19-V2.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... rSolan.pdf
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/n ... the-black/
* http://www.premier-oil.com/premieroil/m ... -update-28

regards, dspp

ReallyVeryFoolish
Posts: 38
Joined: October 5th, 2019, 12:06 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#256529

Postby ReallyVeryFoolish » October 8th, 2019, 9:44 am

Solan sounds highly uneconomic on those numbers. Given the rapid advancements in sub-sea pumping and compression, tie backs to Solan could be highly attractive economically and relatively easy to execute.

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3918
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 3043 times
Been thanked: 914 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#256531

Postby dspp » October 8th, 2019, 9:52 am

ReallyVeryFoolish wrote:Solan sounds highly uneconomic on those numbers. Given the rapid advancements in sub-sea pumping and compression, tie backs to Solan could be highly attractive economically and relatively easy to execute.


Agree, but only if it can be grabbed from Premier at negligible cost. So basically force them to take losses until they give in ! But by the time that is done the main development will be nigh and the window of opportunity for Premier gone. An interesting issue.

Technically I don't know how Rona Ridge crude would stand being put in a 300,000 bbl steel shelled subsea tank to await offloads. To what extent is there a wax risk ? One thing for sure adding technical complications is a quick way to kill this pathway.

regards, dspp

PeterGray
Lemon Slice
Posts: 549
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 146 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#256548

Postby PeterGray » October 8th, 2019, 10:54 am

Good point about potential waxing. So far the EPS seems to be having minimal waxing issues - and somewhat better than allowed for. However, it's clear that waxing is a potential issue they are concerned about - so there could be issues there. And if they had to start looking at replacing/upgrading the tank to provide insulation and/or heating that would likely throw the economics.

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3918
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 3043 times
Been thanked: 914 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#257258

Postby dspp » October 11th, 2019, 10:27 pm

New Interim Results Roadshow Presentation

https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/index.p ... sentations

dated 7-Oct-19 but posted 11-Oct-19 for the courtesy of PIs who actually are shareholders.

(I guess they had to after RB of CA starting tweeting)

Lancaster producing wells' PI's have increased:
well 6: 160 >> 205 b/d/psi (this is the dry oil well)
well 7z: 147 >> 190 b/d/psi (this is the non-rate-dependent ?? perched/trapped ?? watercut well of approx 8% watercut)

GOR seems to be coming in at 360 scf/bbl, which to my mind is fine.

Still no pressure barriers identified.

No reservoir pressure development data given in the presentation.

(Navion Oceania due in for another offload tomorrow according to the shipwatchers)

- dspp

ReallyVeryFoolish
Posts: 38
Joined: October 5th, 2019, 12:06 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#257278

Postby ReallyVeryFoolish » October 12th, 2019, 4:16 am

An outstanding review of an outstandingly high quality small company. I also note RB's 2021 target value of 347p. Around two years ago when I invested in HUR, I saw a potential 300 to 350p value. At this point though, I am unable to comprehend why the stock price is still only around 40p. I cannot understand why we aren't north of 100p at this time. An unexpected low ball offer could end up robbing the patient private investor of significant upside, I feel.

JoyofBricks8
Lemon Pip
Posts: 99
Joined: September 28th, 2019, 3:48 am
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#257279

Postby JoyofBricks8 » October 12th, 2019, 4:35 am

Lincoln and Lancaster seem to be going really rather well, and they are worth the price of admission alone.

I feel that a huge amount is now riding on the Warwick West result. If not commercial then the geological model will come under question. The nature of fractured basement might mean Dr Trice is absolutely correct that there is loadsa oil down there but we may get unlucky and fail to intersect a good fracture: What then?

If we look at where the company hopes to be in 2022, this has potential to multibag. But I thought that two years ago, and havent been rewarded for my optimism.

ReallyVeryFoolish
Posts: 38
Joined: October 5th, 2019, 12:06 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#257285

Postby ReallyVeryFoolish » October 12th, 2019, 7:25 am

JoB8, pretty much my thinking too.


Return to “Oil & Gas & Energy (Sector & Companies)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest