Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators
Thanks to Rhyd6,eyeball08,Wondergirly,bofh,johnstevens77, for Donating to support the site
Hurricane Energy (HUR)
-
Clitheroekid
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2874
- Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
- Has thanked: 1389 times
- Been thanked: 3805 times
Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
An optimistic note from Cantor Fitzgerald - http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/com ... deal+boost
-
Clitheroekid
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2874
- Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
- Has thanked: 1389 times
- Been thanked: 3805 times
Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
And another positive view, this time from W H Ireland - http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/com ... F04%2F2018
-
dspp
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5884
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
- Has thanked: 5825 times
- Been thanked: 2127 times
Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
I know I've mentioned this before when I posited a 5-10 mile tie back. I have now got my ruler out again and I reckon you could get to a drill centre on Lincoln fairly close to the top structure with an 8km step out, and to Warwick top structure with a 10km stepout. Depending on exactly how one wished to take the trajectory into each of the structures and which bit you wanted to target of course, as that could complicate things - if you are prepared not to be top structure it could be closer. Lincoln has a well in it already that seems to be a 6.5km tie-back if reused but it may not be in a good enough place (or condition) to reuse, or maybe it is, in which case simples.
Either way I am pretty sure that's where two of the next appraisal wells will go. They don't need to get flow assurance for all of the well lives, just for a few years. Nor do they need to get them assured for all rates (so for example they could take the view that they don't need flow assurance under only natural lift, just under ESP lift; and would circulate the flowlines to a stable fluid if both ESPs ever failed). Or they could make more pigging or chemical injection provision. Whichever way I highly suspect that will give them the scope to stretch the tie-back distance far enough out to prove up these two in an appraisal campaign in 2019. Plus a re-entry on Halifax.
In my previous valuation notes (28-Oct-17, and 11-Dec-17) I figured they'd be able to tie-back Lincoln but wasn't so sure about Warwick. HUR have clearly listened to investors chatting and it seems to me they are saying that it can be done in some circumstances. They have to tell us in public because the IIs will be listening to our chatter and then asking the same questions in private, and they can't give different sets of information to different sets of investors. So they have to say it out loud to everyone.
By clever phasing of the shut-in periods they could then produce all three reservoirs sufficient to appraise them over the next couple of years, e.g. flow Warwick when Lancaster shut in (for pressure response analysis) etc; and still stay beneath the overall flare consent limit.
Looking good
regards, dspp
Either way I am pretty sure that's where two of the next appraisal wells will go. They don't need to get flow assurance for all of the well lives, just for a few years. Nor do they need to get them assured for all rates (so for example they could take the view that they don't need flow assurance under only natural lift, just under ESP lift; and would circulate the flowlines to a stable fluid if both ESPs ever failed). Or they could make more pigging or chemical injection provision. Whichever way I highly suspect that will give them the scope to stretch the tie-back distance far enough out to prove up these two in an appraisal campaign in 2019. Plus a re-entry on Halifax.
In my previous valuation notes (28-Oct-17, and 11-Dec-17) I figured they'd be able to tie-back Lincoln but wasn't so sure about Warwick. HUR have clearly listened to investors chatting and it seems to me they are saying that it can be done in some circumstances. They have to tell us in public because the IIs will be listening to our chatter and then asking the same questions in private, and they can't give different sets of information to different sets of investors. So they have to say it out loud to everyone.
By clever phasing of the shut-in periods they could then produce all three reservoirs sufficient to appraise them over the next couple of years, e.g. flow Warwick when Lancaster shut in (for pressure response analysis) etc; and still stay beneath the overall flare consent limit.
Looking good
regards, dspp
-
PeterGray
- Lemon Slice
- Posts: 848
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
- Has thanked: 789 times
- Been thanked: 343 times
Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
Interesting idea dspp.
The drawback would be FPSO and gas handling capacity. Given those the downside would be to slow down the proving up of Lancaster. So I'd be inclined to think that HUR might see it as more important to move forward and get Lancaster proved up for some sort of FFD, or possibly partial phase 2 development (depending on industry interest), which any production testing of Lincoln and Warwick having to wait.
It doesn't rule out appraisals on those, or possible ties in in the future though - it certainly increase the options which can't be bad!
Peter
The drawback would be FPSO and gas handling capacity. Given those the downside would be to slow down the proving up of Lancaster. So I'd be inclined to think that HUR might see it as more important to move forward and get Lancaster proved up for some sort of FFD, or possibly partial phase 2 development (depending on industry interest), which any production testing of Lincoln and Warwick having to wait.
It doesn't rule out appraisals on those, or possible ties in in the future though - it certainly increase the options which can't be bad!
Peter
-
dspp
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5884
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
- Has thanked: 5825 times
- Been thanked: 2127 times
Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
Peter,
1) It will be necessary to shut the various wells in from time to time to look at the pressure response. 2) The flare consent is an average, not a peak. 3) The process/flare kit may of course be a limit, which is one of the reasons to be very alert re GOR (there are others). I'm not saying it would be ideal, but I am beginning to think it could be achieved by sequencing (programming) the well flowing periods in such a way that Lancaster always gets sufficient priority.
From a valuation perspective those adjacent structures need properly appraising (Lincoln), or 'finding' (Warwick) so the wells have to happen in any case. It then becomes a decision as to whether to do exploration EWTs or to plan for production tie-backs (or both). There is so little additional spend required to properly prove up Lincoln & Warwick that I can't see it not happening, providing Lancaster is producing sufficient cash. (But northern Halifax is too far away, so that will have to be an EWT).
However the OGA will be very reluctant to increase the flare consent (in the UK). Flaring for exploration and in the context of derisking a field sufficient to get a FFD sized is one thing. But flaring for long term production off fields this size is another. So, whatever the thoughts regarding the desirability of it, if the GOR is high enough then either that additional gas is going to have to be re-injected or an export pipeline paid for. That in turn influences timing, cost, and sequencing of developments - and that in turn influences valuation & negotiations. My personal view continues to be that if HUR has to go it alone to get full value then an IFD of about 100,000 bbl/day will come before a FFD, and will likely involve reinjection as the money would not be sufficient to do a gas export pipeline. There is a technical caveat to that which is whether the reservoir seal can take the additional pressure of a gas cap.
regards, dspp
1) It will be necessary to shut the various wells in from time to time to look at the pressure response. 2) The flare consent is an average, not a peak. 3) The process/flare kit may of course be a limit, which is one of the reasons to be very alert re GOR (there are others). I'm not saying it would be ideal, but I am beginning to think it could be achieved by sequencing (programming) the well flowing periods in such a way that Lancaster always gets sufficient priority.
From a valuation perspective those adjacent structures need properly appraising (Lincoln), or 'finding' (Warwick) so the wells have to happen in any case. It then becomes a decision as to whether to do exploration EWTs or to plan for production tie-backs (or both). There is so little additional spend required to properly prove up Lincoln & Warwick that I can't see it not happening, providing Lancaster is producing sufficient cash. (But northern Halifax is too far away, so that will have to be an EWT).
However the OGA will be very reluctant to increase the flare consent (in the UK). Flaring for exploration and in the context of derisking a field sufficient to get a FFD sized is one thing. But flaring for long term production off fields this size is another. So, whatever the thoughts regarding the desirability of it, if the GOR is high enough then either that additional gas is going to have to be re-injected or an export pipeline paid for. That in turn influences timing, cost, and sequencing of developments - and that in turn influences valuation & negotiations. My personal view continues to be that if HUR has to go it alone to get full value then an IFD of about 100,000 bbl/day will come before a FFD, and will likely involve reinjection as the money would not be sufficient to do a gas export pipeline. There is a technical caveat to that which is whether the reservoir seal can take the additional pressure of a gas cap.
regards, dspp
-
dspp
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5884
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
- Has thanked: 5825 times
- Been thanked: 2127 times
Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
mmmmmm.....
A bit busy travelling with the day job but I've picked up a few misunderstandings out there, so I'll try and help. I may of course be wrong. Anyway my comments.
HUR need to issue a full map of all four/five fields on one sheet of paper with a scale bar and all the normal oilfield data on it. That would help everyone immensely, and there is no reason why it should not be done.
Gas disposal can cause a gas cap. Even though in geological time the gas will be reabsorbed, in the human time of interest (years) the gas may not be absorbed. The rate at which it goes back into solution depends on data we do not have as PIs. It is a dynamic system, not one that has achieved an equilibrium once humans start meddling with it. One tries to inject via a disposal well at a structural high point sufficiently far away from the producer(s) that gas breakthrough does not occur into the (lower set) producers. If there is a strong aquifer that is essentially providing voidage replacement at the bottom, then the top of the oil column is staying at a constant pressure. Therefore the pressure in the gas leg above that is set by the gas gradient and the depth of the gas leg. That is set by structure geometry, and the injected volume. That in turn can lead to a very high, but localised, pressure in the gas leg beneath the seal, i.e. higher than the seal was exposed to before humans injected the gas. Is the seal sufficiently competent to accept this for the timescale of interest ? If not then the reinjection option is not available.* These (the quad) are relatively shallow reservoirs (the fifth is deeper) and so one cannot be too sure. HUR would prefer to flare. The OGA have capped that at equiv to approx 30kbopd. So HUR may have to do something they understandably prefer not to do ...... (by the way there was some information that there might have been a very small gas cap at the crest of Halifax, which still has not been disproven, and gives an inkling of how close these quad fields may be to having natural gas caps forming. Remember how shallow they are ....).
The fact that BP has an offtake contract simply means that HUR don't need to fuss about selling cargos. Nothing more. It gives BP no special in.
GOR. Be careful of facts. Not all facts are equally dependable. When (if) there has been a month of production then one ought to be able to rely on the stated GOR. Until then it is a slightly iffy number, and it is crucially important. If the GOR comes in higher than we think then a gas handling solution will climb the priority list pretty quickly. If low then it is less consequential in the short term, but more consequential in the longer term (gas import for late field life fuel gas even).
VOI. Value of information. After (say) 6-12 months of pumping the pair of wells in Lancaster a lot of questions will be fairly well answered re Lan. From then on the remaining information value is of relatively little value. So rather than 'just' pumping for free cashflow at (say) $0.75m/day = $135m/6-months (using $25/bbl margin) the question becomes is where/how can one get more than $135m of shareholder value another way. The answer is to understand the VOI equation for all the other as yet unanswered questions and to plot the optimal pathway through that sequence. That is a classic decision making under uncertainty in a capital constrained environment problem with various other constraints, i.e. what you do with a spreadsheet if simple, or Crystal Ball if more sophisticated. Directionally you get some information value from drilling a non-producer into a reservoir, but more value by drilling a producer and maturing those volumes to a different reserves category. For example at the moment I have Warwick sitting at P50 on $0.10/bbl for an EV of $94m. But on the 50/50 pathway you can appraise Warwick (i.e. 6m production) and that rises to 2P at $5/bbl and EV of $4.6bn. That's $4.5bn upside from just 6m reservoir access ...... to yield information ...**... Done carefully that might cost say $50m to achieve (please excuse but it has been a while since I costed wells and flowlines, so my actual costs may be out of date). Not bad use of 6-months of the EPS's time once the EPS has served its purpose in bringing value up on Lancaster, certainly worth trying to get a bit of room for in Lincoln/Warwick if possible. Do the sums and think about it for each of the structures - that is exactly what they are doing in the company you own. I have a fun dayjob that keeps me busy so do not have time to code that, nor am I paid for it, but i can see what the results would be (mind you cross my palm with silver and I can do it).
HUR have not categorically said that max tieback length is 6km. What they have said is much more nuanced than that. Under some circumstances, for some reasons, for some periods of time, at some flow rates, with some levels of knowledge, other things are indicated by what HUR have already said. My strong suspicion is that people will be looking very closely at whether the flowline envelope can be stretched to 6-10km so as to get "flow assurance" for (say) 6-12 months. If so, that means the AM can serve to sufficiently appraise Lincoln and Warwick without moving an inch.
Maximum value is extracted from doing a deal on the quad, not singly. Maybe the quint (Whirlwind). There is almost certainly pressure communication between LanHal; and between LinWar. That means they should in most circumstances be developed as duos. But the gas handling situation means highly likely a gas pipeline. That in turn means there will be a quad relationship in most scenarios. Consider it from a bidding dynamics perspective and you'll similarly see that a one-off deal for all four named Rona Ridge reservoirs is optimum. Then think about the gas again and it makes a lot of sense to add in Whirlwind as a quint. I've written about this issue before, I won't repeat myself now, go read what I have said.
To get max value there need to be at least three bidders: the DIY pathway for HUR; a traditional Western majors consortium; and just in case a second trad Western consortium does not formate then a Asian consortium should be wooed. Get competition in the bidding stage to drive the price high. But first bake the cake well enough to bring all of the slices to the right level of delicousness rather than selling some slices underbaked. This is what your own management team will be doing. In my opinion. Please DYOR. The purpose of the HUR DIY case is to outlast the trad Western majors buyers strike that you are watching right now, come what may. My personal preferred pathway for the HUR DIY route is via an IFD to solve the various constraints, but there are others. There only needs to be one way that works to avoid being crippled and held hostage by the buyers strike. The situation exists because Rona Ridge is just so big.
If posting a URL link or page ref to TLF then please note that depending on people's default settings the posts are top down, or bottom up. So if you want to reference a particular post always give the URL of the thread, then reference a specific date/time. Or reference the little unique number in the top left hand corner of a post.
Best wishes all. I have no special inside knowledge. The HUR team will be doing all this properly and may do many things none of us are discussing. Let me know if I have made an error please.
regards, dspp
* remember that most seals that have ever formed in geological time have been breached.
** see my previous valuation notes (28-Oct-17, and 11-Dec-17) for how to do the basic version of these sums, (fill in your own numbers if you have better ones).
A bit busy travelling with the day job but I've picked up a few misunderstandings out there, so I'll try and help. I may of course be wrong. Anyway my comments.
HUR need to issue a full map of all four/five fields on one sheet of paper with a scale bar and all the normal oilfield data on it. That would help everyone immensely, and there is no reason why it should not be done.
Gas disposal can cause a gas cap. Even though in geological time the gas will be reabsorbed, in the human time of interest (years) the gas may not be absorbed. The rate at which it goes back into solution depends on data we do not have as PIs. It is a dynamic system, not one that has achieved an equilibrium once humans start meddling with it. One tries to inject via a disposal well at a structural high point sufficiently far away from the producer(s) that gas breakthrough does not occur into the (lower set) producers. If there is a strong aquifer that is essentially providing voidage replacement at the bottom, then the top of the oil column is staying at a constant pressure. Therefore the pressure in the gas leg above that is set by the gas gradient and the depth of the gas leg. That is set by structure geometry, and the injected volume. That in turn can lead to a very high, but localised, pressure in the gas leg beneath the seal, i.e. higher than the seal was exposed to before humans injected the gas. Is the seal sufficiently competent to accept this for the timescale of interest ? If not then the reinjection option is not available.* These (the quad) are relatively shallow reservoirs (the fifth is deeper) and so one cannot be too sure. HUR would prefer to flare. The OGA have capped that at equiv to approx 30kbopd. So HUR may have to do something they understandably prefer not to do ...... (by the way there was some information that there might have been a very small gas cap at the crest of Halifax, which still has not been disproven, and gives an inkling of how close these quad fields may be to having natural gas caps forming. Remember how shallow they are ....).
The fact that BP has an offtake contract simply means that HUR don't need to fuss about selling cargos. Nothing more. It gives BP no special in.
GOR. Be careful of facts. Not all facts are equally dependable. When (if) there has been a month of production then one ought to be able to rely on the stated GOR. Until then it is a slightly iffy number, and it is crucially important. If the GOR comes in higher than we think then a gas handling solution will climb the priority list pretty quickly. If low then it is less consequential in the short term, but more consequential in the longer term (gas import for late field life fuel gas even).
VOI. Value of information. After (say) 6-12 months of pumping the pair of wells in Lancaster a lot of questions will be fairly well answered re Lan. From then on the remaining information value is of relatively little value. So rather than 'just' pumping for free cashflow at (say) $0.75m/day = $135m/6-months (using $25/bbl margin) the question becomes is where/how can one get more than $135m of shareholder value another way. The answer is to understand the VOI equation for all the other as yet unanswered questions and to plot the optimal pathway through that sequence. That is a classic decision making under uncertainty in a capital constrained environment problem with various other constraints, i.e. what you do with a spreadsheet if simple, or Crystal Ball if more sophisticated. Directionally you get some information value from drilling a non-producer into a reservoir, but more value by drilling a producer and maturing those volumes to a different reserves category. For example at the moment I have Warwick sitting at P50 on $0.10/bbl for an EV of $94m. But on the 50/50 pathway you can appraise Warwick (i.e. 6m production) and that rises to 2P at $5/bbl and EV of $4.6bn. That's $4.5bn upside from just 6m reservoir access ...... to yield information ...**... Done carefully that might cost say $50m to achieve (please excuse but it has been a while since I costed wells and flowlines, so my actual costs may be out of date). Not bad use of 6-months of the EPS's time once the EPS has served its purpose in bringing value up on Lancaster, certainly worth trying to get a bit of room for in Lincoln/Warwick if possible. Do the sums and think about it for each of the structures - that is exactly what they are doing in the company you own. I have a fun dayjob that keeps me busy so do not have time to code that, nor am I paid for it, but i can see what the results would be (mind you cross my palm with silver and I can do it).
HUR have not categorically said that max tieback length is 6km. What they have said is much more nuanced than that. Under some circumstances, for some reasons, for some periods of time, at some flow rates, with some levels of knowledge, other things are indicated by what HUR have already said. My strong suspicion is that people will be looking very closely at whether the flowline envelope can be stretched to 6-10km so as to get "flow assurance" for (say) 6-12 months. If so, that means the AM can serve to sufficiently appraise Lincoln and Warwick without moving an inch.
Maximum value is extracted from doing a deal on the quad, not singly. Maybe the quint (Whirlwind). There is almost certainly pressure communication between LanHal; and between LinWar. That means they should in most circumstances be developed as duos. But the gas handling situation means highly likely a gas pipeline. That in turn means there will be a quad relationship in most scenarios. Consider it from a bidding dynamics perspective and you'll similarly see that a one-off deal for all four named Rona Ridge reservoirs is optimum. Then think about the gas again and it makes a lot of sense to add in Whirlwind as a quint. I've written about this issue before, I won't repeat myself now, go read what I have said.
To get max value there need to be at least three bidders: the DIY pathway for HUR; a traditional Western majors consortium; and just in case a second trad Western consortium does not formate then a Asian consortium should be wooed. Get competition in the bidding stage to drive the price high. But first bake the cake well enough to bring all of the slices to the right level of delicousness rather than selling some slices underbaked. This is what your own management team will be doing. In my opinion. Please DYOR. The purpose of the HUR DIY case is to outlast the trad Western majors buyers strike that you are watching right now, come what may. My personal preferred pathway for the HUR DIY route is via an IFD to solve the various constraints, but there are others. There only needs to be one way that works to avoid being crippled and held hostage by the buyers strike. The situation exists because Rona Ridge is just so big.
If posting a URL link or page ref to TLF then please note that depending on people's default settings the posts are top down, or bottom up. So if you want to reference a particular post always give the URL of the thread, then reference a specific date/time. Or reference the little unique number in the top left hand corner of a post.
Best wishes all. I have no special inside knowledge. The HUR team will be doing all this properly and may do many things none of us are discussing. Let me know if I have made an error please.
regards, dspp
* remember that most seals that have ever formed in geological time have been breached.
** see my previous valuation notes (28-Oct-17, and 11-Dec-17) for how to do the basic version of these sums, (fill in your own numbers if you have better ones).
-
Clitheroekid
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2874
- Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
- Has thanked: 1389 times
- Been thanked: 3805 times
-
StepOne
- Lemon Slice
- Posts: 668
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:17 am
- Has thanked: 195 times
- Been thanked: 185 times
Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
dspp wrote:...(mind you cross my palm with silver and I can do it).
How much would it take
StepOne
-
dspp
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5884
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
- Has thanked: 5825 times
- Been thanked: 2127 times
Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
RNS Number : 6888L 23 April 2018 Appointment of Non-Executive Chairman
Hurricane Energy plc, the UK based oil and gas company focused on hydrocarbon resources in naturally fractured basement reservoirs, announces the appointment of Mr Steven McTiernan as Non-Executive Chairman of the board of directors of Hurricane (the "Board"), effective 1 May 2018. Dr David Jenkins, who has acted as Interim Chairman of the Board since November 2017, will return to his previous role as Senior Independent Director on this date.
Mr Steven McTiernan has over forty-five years of oil and gas industry and investment banking experience. He was a non-executive director of Tullow Oil plc for eleven years until December 2012, during its period of rapid growth, and served as its Senior Independent Director. He is currently Chairman of Kenmare Resources, a mining company listed on the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange (Premium segment), where he has been on the board since 2013. He was an independent director at First Quantum Minerals Ltd until June 2012, and an independent director at Songa Offshore SE until January 2014. His oil and gas industry experience includes roles at Iraq Petroleum, Amoco, BP and Mesa, and his banking experience includes senior roles leading energy teams at the Chase Manhattan Bank, NatWest Markets and CIBC. He holds an MA in Natural Sciences from the University of Cambridge.
etc https://otp.tools.investis.com/clients/uk/hurricane_energy1/rns/regulatory-story.aspx?cid=773&newsid=1001834
regards, dspp
Hurricane Energy plc, the UK based oil and gas company focused on hydrocarbon resources in naturally fractured basement reservoirs, announces the appointment of Mr Steven McTiernan as Non-Executive Chairman of the board of directors of Hurricane (the "Board"), effective 1 May 2018. Dr David Jenkins, who has acted as Interim Chairman of the Board since November 2017, will return to his previous role as Senior Independent Director on this date.
Mr Steven McTiernan has over forty-five years of oil and gas industry and investment banking experience. He was a non-executive director of Tullow Oil plc for eleven years until December 2012, during its period of rapid growth, and served as its Senior Independent Director. He is currently Chairman of Kenmare Resources, a mining company listed on the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange (Premium segment), where he has been on the board since 2013. He was an independent director at First Quantum Minerals Ltd until June 2012, and an independent director at Songa Offshore SE until January 2014. His oil and gas industry experience includes roles at Iraq Petroleum, Amoco, BP and Mesa, and his banking experience includes senior roles leading energy teams at the Chase Manhattan Bank, NatWest Markets and CIBC. He holds an MA in Natural Sciences from the University of Cambridge.
etc https://otp.tools.investis.com/clients/uk/hurricane_energy1/rns/regulatory-story.aspx?cid=773&newsid=1001834
regards, dspp
-
NigWit
- Lemon Pip
- Posts: 66
- Joined: October 30th, 2017, 8:05 pm
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 34 times
Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
Personally I thought the appointment was disappointingly dull after so long waiting but, according to the Investor’s Chronicle, WH Ireland are reading more into it.
“Hurricane Energy (HUR) has found a non-executive chairman in Steven McTiernan, a former non-executive of Tullow Oil and the current chairman of main-market listed Kenmare Resources. In 40 years in the oil and gas industry, Mr Tiernan has held roles for Iraq Petroleum, Amoco, BP and Mesa, as well as senior banking roles at Chase Manhattan Bank, NatWest Markets and CIBC. WH Ireland said the choice and general tone of the message accompanying the appointment “suggests to us that a premium listing is forthcoming”.
https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/sh ... kson-more/
——
Crystal Amber have been in the news a lot recently. Last week RB lambasted Northgate in The Times and today it was De La Rue’s turn. There was a disappointing legal judgement against Leaf Clean Energy last week but FairFX is doing well this year with a 52% increase in 2017 revenues announced today. In case this seems unimportant we should remember that Richard Bernstein is determined to get full value for Hurricane so when his fund’s other investments do well it suits us too since it helps prevent Hurricane becoming too large a constituent of his portfolio. There’s been no notifications that he’s sold any Hurricane shares since he acquired more in the fundraise last year. So far as I can see so long as his other shares continue to perform as well as Hurricane, there’s no reason for that to change.
“Hurricane Energy (HUR) has found a non-executive chairman in Steven McTiernan, a former non-executive of Tullow Oil and the current chairman of main-market listed Kenmare Resources. In 40 years in the oil and gas industry, Mr Tiernan has held roles for Iraq Petroleum, Amoco, BP and Mesa, as well as senior banking roles at Chase Manhattan Bank, NatWest Markets and CIBC. WH Ireland said the choice and general tone of the message accompanying the appointment “suggests to us that a premium listing is forthcoming”.
https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/sh ... kson-more/
——
Crystal Amber have been in the news a lot recently. Last week RB lambasted Northgate in The Times and today it was De La Rue’s turn. There was a disappointing legal judgement against Leaf Clean Energy last week but FairFX is doing well this year with a 52% increase in 2017 revenues announced today. In case this seems unimportant we should remember that Richard Bernstein is determined to get full value for Hurricane so when his fund’s other investments do well it suits us too since it helps prevent Hurricane becoming too large a constituent of his portfolio. There’s been no notifications that he’s sold any Hurricane shares since he acquired more in the fundraise last year. So far as I can see so long as his other shares continue to perform as well as Hurricane, there’s no reason for that to change.
-
Clitheroekid
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2874
- Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
- Has thanked: 1389 times
- Been thanked: 3805 times
Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
Interetsing to see that McTiernan is ex-BP. Dr David Jenkins, who was the Interim Non Exec Chairman, also had several senior positions at BP including that of Chief Geologist.
Bearing in mind the proximity of the Clare field I can't help wondering whether BP are running the slide rule (showing my age!) over HUR ...
Bearing in mind the proximity of the Clare field I can't help wondering whether BP are running the slide rule (showing my age!) over HUR ...
-
dspp
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5884
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
- Has thanked: 5825 times
- Been thanked: 2127 times
Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
If BP aren't keeping a very close eye on HUR's figures they're dead from the waist down imho, but I don't read anything across from somebody having worked at BP. It is actually quite a small world and so if they are WASPs and in oil and UK-based then it is 50/50 that they've been in BP. Personally this chap is just enough of a token to keep the governance junkies at bay, whilst the real work on the asset gets done without any changes of strategy. As such I am hugely relieved, as the last thing I think is required is a strategy course-change.
regards, dspp
regards, dspp
-
dspp
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5884
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
- Has thanked: 5825 times
- Been thanked: 2127 times
Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
RNS : https://otp.tools.investis.com/clients/ ... id=1002771
Hurricane Energy plc, ....., announces that electronic copies of its Annual Report and Group Financial Statements for the year ended 31 December 2017 ("Annual Report"), and the notice of the Company's 2018 Annual General Meeting ("AGM"), have been published today in the Investors section of the Company's website at www.hurricaneenergy.com.
The AGM will be held at 11.00 a.m. on Wednesday, 6 June 2018 at The Science Suite, Royal Society of Chemistry, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London, W1J 0BA. Printed copies of the Annual Report and Notice of AGM will be posted to Shareholders on 30 April 2018.
Hurricane Energy plc, ....., announces that electronic copies of its Annual Report and Group Financial Statements for the year ended 31 December 2017 ("Annual Report"), and the notice of the Company's 2018 Annual General Meeting ("AGM"), have been published today in the Investors section of the Company's website at www.hurricaneenergy.com.
The AGM will be held at 11.00 a.m. on Wednesday, 6 June 2018 at The Science Suite, Royal Society of Chemistry, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London, W1J 0BA. Printed copies of the Annual Report and Notice of AGM will be posted to Shareholders on 30 April 2018.
-
NigWit
- Lemon Pip
- Posts: 66
- Joined: October 30th, 2017, 8:05 pm
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 34 times
Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
The share price is looking perky this week. I've heard a suggestion that the trees will be run with a boat since the rig has been delayed but will be available soon for the well completions. Perhaps that's why.
On the new chairman. Rob Trice did say to Energy Voice that he did not want a big company oil man but we seem to have one, albeit one who also worked with Tullow. I'd suggest that this may indicate a compromise with the louder major holders and that peace has broken out.
Let's hope all this is true. Anyhow, the market is happier about things and so am I.
On the new chairman. Rob Trice did say to Energy Voice that he did not want a big company oil man but we seem to have one, albeit one who also worked with Tullow. I'd suggest that this may indicate a compromise with the louder major holders and that peace has broken out.
Let's hope all this is true. Anyhow, the market is happier about things and so am I.
-
dspp
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5884
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
- Has thanked: 5825 times
- Been thanked: 2127 times
Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
There seems to be a new presentation up on the HUR website
https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/communi ... sentations
Roadshow Presentation - May 2018
Hurricane carried out an investor roadshow in May. You can download the associated presentation by clicking here.
This may work as a direct link
https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/~/media ... red-v2.pdf
Possibly the most interesting thing about it is the intriguing description. Why carry out an investor roadshow in May 2018 ? That in itself is food for thoughts, which to me are of a good nature as they indicate that HUR are doing the long range groundwork for the go-it-alone option, or the go-it-partially-alone option, and that in my opinion is needed so as to have a BATNA for farmin/out discussions over the coming years. Also for a main market listing in the nearer term.
The contents of the presentation won't be a surprise to anyone here. Slides 24-28 are the more interesting ones. They are beginning to more openly discuss the reservoir information gathering campaign so as to educate investors in what to expect; and to set out the longer term development options from a technical perspective. As anyone who has worked on these things will know one of the key jigsaw pieces is the gas and they are trying to make it clear that they don't ewant to inject in the first 3-years. Well that's fine from my perspective as, if they do end up being forced down a DIY IFD as the next step then I wouldn't expect it to be producing within 3-years. More likely one year to decide that the majors won't make a consortium bid, then 2-years to get a IFD floater running - and that would be a very fast track project if it were to be done in that timescale. The point about the gas reinjection is it is the cheapest solution and that delays a pipeline commitment until sufficient info is known for FFD. WAtching HUR having to set out the facts on these things to institutional investors is hugely encouraging from a PI perspective, as it shows that HUR is being assessed seriously by the institutions for the longer term as an asset play that is sizeable enough to need understanding seriously, and in turn not discarded prematurely for a low-ball bid.
(there is also the 2Q presentation on the site but I think that is not new)
(nice to see the share price response in the last month)
regards, dspp
https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/communi ... sentations
Roadshow Presentation - May 2018
Hurricane carried out an investor roadshow in May. You can download the associated presentation by clicking here.
This may work as a direct link
https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/~/media ... red-v2.pdf
Possibly the most interesting thing about it is the intriguing description. Why carry out an investor roadshow in May 2018 ? That in itself is food for thoughts, which to me are of a good nature as they indicate that HUR are doing the long range groundwork for the go-it-alone option, or the go-it-partially-alone option, and that in my opinion is needed so as to have a BATNA for farmin/out discussions over the coming years. Also for a main market listing in the nearer term.
The contents of the presentation won't be a surprise to anyone here. Slides 24-28 are the more interesting ones. They are beginning to more openly discuss the reservoir information gathering campaign so as to educate investors in what to expect; and to set out the longer term development options from a technical perspective. As anyone who has worked on these things will know one of the key jigsaw pieces is the gas and they are trying to make it clear that they don't ewant to inject in the first 3-years. Well that's fine from my perspective as, if they do end up being forced down a DIY IFD as the next step then I wouldn't expect it to be producing within 3-years. More likely one year to decide that the majors won't make a consortium bid, then 2-years to get a IFD floater running - and that would be a very fast track project if it were to be done in that timescale. The point about the gas reinjection is it is the cheapest solution and that delays a pipeline commitment until sufficient info is known for FFD. WAtching HUR having to set out the facts on these things to institutional investors is hugely encouraging from a PI perspective, as it shows that HUR is being assessed seriously by the institutions for the longer term as an asset play that is sizeable enough to need understanding seriously, and in turn not discarded prematurely for a low-ball bid.
(there is also the 2Q presentation on the site but I think that is not new)
(nice to see the share price response in the last month)
regards, dspp
-
dspp
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5884
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
- Has thanked: 5825 times
- Been thanked: 2127 times
Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
Please excuse me if I am often behind the curve ... a consequence of my travelling a lot .....
Two RNS out just now:
https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/communi ... ws-service
CA sold down from 7.18% to 6.90%; and
Operational Update:
Lancaster EPS Offshore Installation Phase Commences
Hurricane Energy plc, the UK based oil and gas company focused on hydrocarbon resources in naturally fractured basement reservoirs, is pleased to provide an operational update in relation to the Early Production System on the Lancaster Field ("Lancaster EPS").
The offshore installation phase of the Lancaster EPS development has commenced. The first operation to be carried out was the installation of the Enhanced Horizontal Xmas Trees on the two existing wells. The 'Far Superior' offshore construction vessel successfully landed and secured both Xmas Trees and is now scheduled to demobilise.
Additional logistical work is also taking place at the field ahead of the installation of the turret mooring system for the FPSO.
... no change to H1 2019 FOIL guidance .......
regards, dspp
Two RNS out just now:
https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/communi ... ws-service
CA sold down from 7.18% to 6.90%; and
Operational Update:
Lancaster EPS Offshore Installation Phase Commences
Hurricane Energy plc, the UK based oil and gas company focused on hydrocarbon resources in naturally fractured basement reservoirs, is pleased to provide an operational update in relation to the Early Production System on the Lancaster Field ("Lancaster EPS").
The offshore installation phase of the Lancaster EPS development has commenced. The first operation to be carried out was the installation of the Enhanced Horizontal Xmas Trees on the two existing wells. The 'Far Superior' offshore construction vessel successfully landed and secured both Xmas Trees and is now scheduled to demobilise.
Additional logistical work is also taking place at the field ahead of the installation of the turret mooring system for the FPSO.
... no change to H1 2019 FOIL guidance .......
regards, dspp
-
Carcosa
- Lemon Slice
- Posts: 390
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
- Has thanked: 81 times
- Been thanked: 427 times
Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
I see little point in clogging up these boards with regurgitated RNS's. Everyone knows where to find them and most investors will likely have them in their inbox as soon as they are released anyway. Same thing goes for commenting on daily share price movements. It adds no value at all to the discussion outside of a trader (which should be discussed on a day trading board and not here). In recent months this board has degenerated somewhat with pointless comments. A 'quiet' board is usually a sign of quality board worth reading.
Please leave the daily tittle-tattle to other investment bulletin boards and lets try and keep this one focussed on the big picture aimed at mid to long term investors.
Please leave the daily tittle-tattle to other investment bulletin boards and lets try and keep this one focussed on the big picture aimed at mid to long term investors.
-
StepOne
- Lemon Slice
- Posts: 668
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:17 am
- Has thanked: 195 times
- Been thanked: 185 times
Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
I'm okay with the level of traffic on this board.
StepOne
P.S. I won't mention the fact that there is another RNS out today ..
StepOne
P.S. I won't mention the fact that there is another RNS out today ..
-
dspp
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5884
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
- Has thanked: 5825 times
- Been thanked: 2127 times
Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
ap8889 wrote:I am new to the Hurricane party. Trying to understand why dspp has 25% portfolio in it: that is serious conviction.
Presumably once the hardware is in position 2019q2 first oil flows we should see some further uptick in valuation?
I well remember the heady days on TMF Soco board, if Hurricane is Soco mk2 I want to get involved...
Ap,
Brief reasons given that I am heading on a flight in moment. Firstly the 25% is not all real money to me as it includes a large portion I made out of buying RDSB at bottom. Secondly I calculate I could refill that pot by working for 2-3 more years. Thirdly I have operated naturally fractured fields that were extremely low porosity and might as well been basement. And do I have a personal view on the subsurface risk that is not the same as the market view. Fourthly this rona ridge structure is so darn big. Fifth it is low risk in almost every other way in my opinion compared to many other pre ffd plays. Again my opinion only based on personal experience. Please read through the whole of this thread and form your own view as to risk, certainly do not trust my view. There is a lot that could go wrong and I have seen naturally fractured reservoirs do unexpected things.
Regards,
Dspp
-
PeterGray
- Lemon Slice
- Posts: 848
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
- Has thanked: 789 times
- Been thanked: 343 times
Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
That first link is to an old presentation about one of the earlier wells.
The more recent ones - in particular the 2 that will be used in the EPS managed better initial flow rates.
However, those certainly won't both produce at full capacity, and certainly not in the first year, while they are testing out the wells and gathering data on the reservoir. See for example slide 22 of the Q2 corporate presentation -
https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/~/media ... red-v2.pdf
Also worth looking at the recent roadshow presentation.
As for other assets - well none other than the Rona Ridge, but the EPS is only a very small part of that. If the EPS is a success then HUR will either be bought out, become a minor partner to a consortium of larger oilcos, or just possible use the EPS cashflow to go it alone (not likely in my view - but it provides a backstop against being taken over cheaply). Either way, short of major unexpected geological issues HUR's stake is likely to be worth a lot more than the current mcap within 2-3 years time.
Peter
The more recent ones - in particular the 2 that will be used in the EPS managed better initial flow rates.
However, those certainly won't both produce at full capacity, and certainly not in the first year, while they are testing out the wells and gathering data on the reservoir. See for example slide 22 of the Q2 corporate presentation -
https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/~/media ... red-v2.pdf
Also worth looking at the recent roadshow presentation.
As for other assets - well none other than the Rona Ridge, but the EPS is only a very small part of that. If the EPS is a success then HUR will either be bought out, become a minor partner to a consortium of larger oilcos, or just possible use the EPS cashflow to go it alone (not likely in my view - but it provides a backstop against being taken over cheaply). Either way, short of major unexpected geological issues HUR's stake is likely to be worth a lot more than the current mcap within 2-3 years time.
Peter
Return to “Oil & Gas & Energy (Sector & Companies)”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests