Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
Posted: March 23rd, 2017, 12:39 pm
Looks like you need an account - which "your company's portal coordinator" has to set you up for.
Shares, Investment and Personal Finance Discussion Forums
https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/
PeterGray wrote:Looks like you need an account - which "your company's portal coordinator" has to set you up for.
PeterGray wrote:Looks like you need an account - which "your company's portal coordinator" has to set you up for.
try this. Might work
https://www.ft.com/content/7448d5be-108 ... ba212dce4d
Hurricane is expected to announce that initial data from its Halifax well indicates the presence of a 1km-deep oil column and that, crucially, it appears to be part of “a single large hydrocarbon accumulation” connected to the company’s adjacent Lancaster field.
Difficult to see how RNS can be delayed much longer.
PeterGray wrote:Difficult to see how RNS can be delayed much longer.
There must be an RNS tomorrow after this - even if it's only to say the FT is talking balls - which I suspect is unlikely!
Peter
Tilted OWC are not something I have encountered before under static (as-discovered) conditions, as opposed to dynamic in-production conditions. To my simple mind this indicates a series of semi-sealing baffles along the length of the field
Interesting. They will need to explain a north-flowing aquifer if this is correct.
Nimrod103 wrote:Are you not worried that they are claiming Halifax as an oil discovery, yet failed to flow more than traces of oil from a DST? I don't find their explanation for failure all that convincing.
dspp wrote:Nimrod103 wrote:Are you not worried that they are claiming Halifax as an oil discovery, yet failed to flow more than traces of oil from a DST? I don't find their explanation for failure all that convincing.
Am I worried : yes. That is a technical (operational) worry. The non-explanation given was also a worry. Mostly alleviated by having been around enough well programmes to form my own view as to what a prudent operator would have done over the last few months in the conditions and circumstances they were facing. And greatly alleviated by my having watched the way in which the technical part of this management team has conducted itself so far over several years (and knowing their backgrounds) and which therefore allows me to form the view in the previous sentence. Basically at this point I have cut them a bit of slack and I recognise that. Whether it is justified remains to be seen esp as I am not reading the daily drilling reports.
I am also worried, and to an extent encouraged, by the share price response. That may be both a function of the CA / Ker option overhang and internal rebalancing requirements (which the cynics regard, perhaps rightly, as a 'mates rates' opportunity) but nonetheless I topped up today. Yes a higher price, but a lower risk. IMHO. (by the way my intention was not to top up but when I saw the price response I could not believe it - so I did).
The point about the tilted OWC is quite interesting and potentially material in volumetrics terms. It is 168m. Over a 1156m column x a 30-km out-step, this makes for significant volumetric upside esp given the splayed shape of Rona Ridge. Plus the aquifer point I made earlier. Minus the RF point I made earlier.
I am satisfied with the anecdotal info given re poro-perm at this stage, i.e. similar to Lancaster.
No change in oil composition reported: a good indication thus far. Hence my unanswered Q about a) what acreage Shell are booking and b) where Clair came from.
But what do I know. All I did was run O&G fields for a living .... after the clever people had done their bit ... or not .......
What's your view ?
regards, dspp