Donate to Remove ads

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

Thanks to eyeball08,Wondergirly,bofh,johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva, 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: 3803 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#315817

Postby Clitheroekid » June 6th, 2020, 2:20 pm

ReallyVeryFoolish wrote:Put your tin hat on, the feared low ball bid ahoy, perhaps. I hope I am wrong but a cheeky 20-22p offer would see all the little guys wiped out with losses. That would be a typical ending to a typical AIM story. Never again for me, I hope I am wrong.

Indeed. I got my fingers burnt believing the Chris Fraser story at Sirius MInerals, and it looks like I've made the same mistake again here, continuing to believe the good Dr Trice despite the multiple warnings from those who knew better than me.

Another share where I've bought the man and not the company is SRT Marine Systems, the man in question being Simon Tucker. I've actually spoken to him in person a few times, and he's very convincing, mainly because I think he genuinely believes in SRT's potential. And to be fair I haven't actually lost money on SRT - I simply failed to take advantage of what was at one time a very substantial profit, and the SP has now been in the doldrums for years.

Fortunately, the money lost on SXX and HUR - or more accurately potentially lost on HUR - won't make any practical difference to me, but I'm not sure this is a good thing, as if it doesn't hurt the deterrent effect is very limited. Both shares should have been expensive lessons, and I'd like to think I won't repeat the error, but the lure of the multi-bagger is very powerful, and having been lucky enough (and I've concluded that it is mostly luck rather than skill and judgment) to hold a few over the years I strongly suspect I'll be back for more punishment!

As the saying goes, "I can resist everything except temptation". ;)

Proselenes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1372
Joined: November 15th, 2016, 6:04 am
Has thanked: 58 times
Been thanked: 389 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#316267

Postby Proselenes » June 8th, 2020, 7:05 am

Trice gone.

I would be very worried now if I was a HUR holder. What has been hidden and whats going to come out in the wash in the months ahead ?

.

wanderer101
Posts: 41
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 6:47 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 36 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#316273

Postby wanderer101 » June 8th, 2020, 7:24 am

On the plus side, they've included specific productions figures for the 6 well:

Well 205/21a-6 has been producing on its own since 17 May 2020 at a steady rate of c.10,300 bopd with a stable water cut of approximately 8%. In line with the Company's previously announced testing programme for the 205/21a-6 well, on 5 June 2020, the choke size was increased, resulting in a production increase to c.12,000 bopd.

But these could be key lines from the RNS (my bold):

Given the challenges experienced in sustaining the target plateau production rate of 18,000 bopd net from the existing two well configuration on natural flow, the Technical Committee will conduct a review of all available information, including recent dynamic performance data, and will re-examine the full range of possible geological and reservoir models. Any revised interpretations will be factored into an updated Competent Person's Report, which the Company currently anticipates will be released no later than the end of Q1 2021.

...

The forward activity programme will be based on a prudent interpretation of field performance to date, including, for conservatism, the possibility of a shallower oil water contact.

Disc: Ex-holder, not presently considering getting back in.

Proselenes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1372
Joined: November 15th, 2016, 6:04 am
Has thanked: 58 times
Been thanked: 389 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#316276

Postby Proselenes » June 8th, 2020, 7:43 am

Ultimately it may be the start of the process to an eventual admission that 7Z is in fact not perched water but in fact its aquifer, hence the talk of the shallower oil water contact imo.

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#316298

Postby dspp » June 8th, 2020, 9:14 am

Proselenes wrote:Ultimately it may be the start of the process to an eventual admission that 7Z is in fact not perched water but in fact its aquifer, hence the talk of the shallower oil water contact imo.



Looks that way. The non-execs said "him or us" imho. For the benefit of anyone looking into this thread below is the full RNS.

regards, dspp

**************************
https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/applica ... ges_vF.pdf

RNS Number : 1860P Hurricane Energy PLC 08 June 2020



("Hurricane" or the "Company")

Board Changes
&
Operational Update

Hurricane Energy plc, the UK based oil and gas company focused on hydrocarbon resources in naturally fractured basement reservoirs, announces changes to the Company's board of directors ("Board") and provides an operational update.

Board Changes

Dr Robert Trice has resigned as Chief Executive Officer and a director of Hurricane by mutual agreement with the Board. Dr Trice will remain available to assist the Company during a transition period of six months.

Beverley Smith has been appointed Interim Chief Executive Officer. Ms Smith had a successful 30 year career with BG Group and has been a non-executive director of the Company since December 2019. She brings a wealth of production geology and field development leadership experience in the UK and internationally, which will be invaluable as the Company continues its transition from pure exploration towards a maturing production company.

Richard Chaffe, who has been Acting Chief Financial Officer since February 2020, has been confirmed as Chief Financial Officer and an executive director of the Company. Mr Chaffe joined the Company in 2016 as Head of Finance.

Roy Kelly, who has been the Kerogen nominated non-executive director since 2016, has stepped down from the Board and has been replaced with immediate effect by Dr Alan Parsley, a member of the Advisory Board of Kerogen Capital. Dr Parsley is a geologist with over 50 years' experience in the oil and gas industry, primarily at Shell where he held senior positions including Global Head of Exploration, Head of New Business Ventures and E&P Planning, Chief Executive of Syria Shell and Chairman of Shell Australia.

Jason Cheng has stepped down from his Alternate Director position in relation to Kerogen's nominated director. Leonard Tao will continue in this role, acting as alternate to Dr Parsley.

These changes to the Board have taken place with immediate effect. Biographies of Beverley Smith, Dr Alan Parsley and Richard Chaffe are included at the end of this announcement and are also available on the Company's website at http://www.hurricaneenergy.com.

Board Committees

A Technical Committee of the Board has been established, formalising an existing arrangement where certain members of the Board have provided oversight of critical technical matters and Reserves and Resources disclosures. Dr David Jenkins, independent Non-Executive Director since 2013, will Chair the Technical Committee.

An Environmental, Social, and Governance ("ESG") Committee of the Board has also been established to oversee and report on the impacts of Company operations and products. The Board recognises the importance of embedding ESG considerations into Company strategy, to justify our societal licence to operate and improve sustainability, as well as future financial performance.

Terms of Reference for the Technical Committee and ESG Committee are available on the Company's website.

Lancaster Early Production System ("EPS") Operational Update

Well 205/21a-6 has been producing on its own since 17 May 2020 at a steady rate of c.10,300 bopd with a stable water cut of approximately 8%. In line with the Company's previously announced testing programme for the 205/21a-6 well, on 5 June 2020, the choke size was increased, resulting in a production increase to c.12,000 bopd. The well will continue to be monitored, with further incremental increases in production possible depending on observed performance, in order to determine its optimal sustainable rate.

Outlook

Given the challenges experienced in sustaining the target plateau production rate of 18,000 bopd net from the existing two well configuration on natural flow, the Technical Committee will conduct a review of all available information, including recent dynamic performance data, and will re-examine the full range of possible geological and reservoir models. Any revised interpretations will be factored into an updated Competent Person's Report, which the Company currently anticipates will be released no later than the end of Q1 2021.

Given the difficult macroeconomic backdrop and the need to strengthen the Company's balance sheet, the Board is keenly focused on the need to increase production, whilst also keeping capital expenditure focused and to a minimum. Principal among the near-term tasks of the Interim Chief Executive Officer will be to propose a revised forward activity programme in support of those objectives. The forward activity programme will be based on a prudent interpretation of field performance to date, including, for conservatism, the possibility of a shallower oil water contact. The Company will provide an update on the forward activity programme, including scope, objectives, costs and timing, once it is adopted by the Board.

Steven McTiernan, Chairman of Hurricane, commented:

"The Board commends Dr Trice's pioneering efforts to explore the viability of the unique basement oil play west of the Shetlands. His dedication over a period of 16 years has built Hurricane into a recognised UK operator today, culminating in the outstanding success of delivering first oil in May 2019.

"As we move into a phase where the focus is on enhancing production, I am very pleased that Beverley has taken on the role of Interim CEO where her extensive subsurface and development experience will be of huge benefit to the Company.

"In evaluating options for the forward work programme against an uncertain macroeconomic backdrop, we will prioritise early low-cost production with the capital discipline needed to achieve financial resilience."

------
Biographies

Beverley Smith

Ms Smith is a chartered geologist and an accomplished business leader with more than 30 years' experience in the upstream oil and gas sector, having delivered a portfolio of achievements in a successful international career with BG Group, most recently as Vice President Exploration & Growth for Europe. Ms Smith has a background in development and production geology and subsurface management, notably in Trinidad (Hibiscus, Poinsettia and Ixora Fields), Tunisia (Hasdrubal Field) and various operated developments in the U.K. including Mercury, Neptune, Minerva, Apollo, Fleming, Drake and Jackdaw Fields and other non-operated developments. Ms Smith is currently the President of the Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain and holds a B.Sc. in Geology and an M.Sc. in Petroleum Geology.

Richard Chaffe

Mr Chaffe is a Chartered Accountant with over 10 years' experience in the industry in the UK. Before joining Hurricane as Head of Finance, he was Finance Director of the UK subsidiary of EOG Resources Inc., an independent oil and gas exploration and production company with a market value of over $35 billion. Prior to this, he worked for Ernst & Young for nine years, split between client facing work and working as part of an audit quality team within the London office.

Dr Alan Parsley

Dr Parsley is a geologist with over 50 years' experience in the oil and gas industry, primarily at Shell where he held senior positions including Global Head of Exploration, Head of New Business Ventures and E&P Planning, Chief Executive of Syria Shell and Chairman of Shell Australia. He currently serves on the Advisory Board of Kerogen Capital and holds non-executive roles on a number of Kerogen portfolio companies, including Chairman of both Zennor Petroleum and Pandion Energy and board member of Buried Hill Energy. He formerly served as a Shell nominee director of the Boards of Al Furat Petroleum Company and Woodside Petroleum Ltd. and was a member of the Court of Heriot-Watt University from 2005 to 2011. Dr Parsley graduated from the University of Edinburgh and holds a BSc and a PhD in Geology.

AIM Schedule 2(g) Disclosures

Alan John Parsley, aged 76, has held the following directorships and/or partnerships in the past five years:

Current Directorships/Partnerships Previous Directorships/Partnerships
Buried Hill Energy (Cyprus) Public Company Limited
Pandion Energy AS
Zennor Petroleum Limited Petroceltic International plc

Petroceltic International plc, a company in which Dr Parsley was a director was placed into examinership by the High Court of Ireland on 15 June 2016.

Richard Paul Chaffe, aged 42, has not held any directorships in the past five years.


END

Proselenes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1372
Joined: November 15th, 2016, 6:04 am
Has thanked: 58 times
Been thanked: 389 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#316406

Postby Proselenes » June 8th, 2020, 2:01 pm

Sounds like a nasty departure as well.

They only say he will "remain available to assist" for 6 months. EG he is out the door asap and on gardening leave until his termination period expires.


.

Nimrod103
Lemon Half
Posts: 6600
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 969 times
Been thanked: 2315 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#316410

Postby Nimrod103 » June 8th, 2020, 2:07 pm

I'm only surprised they didn't get rid of David Jenkins at the same time as Trice and Kelly. Perhaps he still has too large a financial stake.
9 months to produce a new CPR is clearly extend and pretend. It could be done by 1st August if they really wanted it.

FabianBjornseth
Lemon Pip
Posts: 82
Joined: July 6th, 2018, 10:41 pm
Has thanked: 95 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#316473

Postby FabianBjornseth » June 8th, 2020, 5:36 pm

Nimrod103 wrote:I'm only surprised they didn't get rid of David Jenkins at the same time as Trice and Kelly.


Because he's been on the board for a long time, backing the model that now will be "revised"?

mearnsfool
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 186
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 5:29 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 52 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#316773

Postby mearnsfool » June 9th, 2020, 1:39 pm

I'm of the opinion that when DSPP posted here he had sold his shares in Hurricane Energy, the board decided that Dr Trice then had to go.

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#316785

Postby dspp » June 9th, 2020, 1:56 pm

mearnsfool wrote:I'm of the opinion that when DSPP posted here he had sold his shares in Hurricane Energy, the board decided that Dr Trice then had to go.


:)

You genuinely had me laughing.

It really got to the point where I couldn't trust them to have told us everything we ought to have been told, when we ought to have been told it.

I will of course now miss out on the revaluation as they prove up where the OWC really is, and what the critical flow rate to prevent water ingress really is, and what the real distribution of reservoir properties is. By the time they earn back the trust in timely full disclosure that ought never to have been squandered, the risked-value gap vs share price will have closed. That does somewhat p%%^^ me off, but it is my own error in the first place - as I said "I ordinarily prefer to think the best of people".

I think the board finally reached a similar conclusion. Hey ho.

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)

#318878

Postby dspp » June 16th, 2020, 5:12 pm

ReallyVeryFoolish wrote:For anyone still interested at all in HUR, Edison release an update. I know broker numbers and the like don't count for anything much, but some the numbers more than amply demonstrate that <7p is a stupid (low) price in some respects. My own take is that if RT had opened up discussion much wider than he did and didn't just stick to the "no known problems" (even when there very clearly was) line the share price would have still tanked but might still have been in two figures.

https://www.edisongroup.com/publication ... mme/27065/

RVF


I had a quick look at this and can't really see anything new in here.

I agree that if RT had not become overly wed to one hypothesis, and had given investors an evenhanded view of the data, then he would likely still be with the company.

I may be wrong, but an intervention in the 7z well is not so likely imho. The good news is that it is quite shallow. The bad news is that it would be fairly costly; and would likely need the 6 well shutting in for at least some of the time (when getting the rig into place etc, the wellheads and upper well bores appear quite close); and the two most obvious intervention strategies don't look too hopeful. Trying to set a straddle across a big fracture set in a openhole horizontal section is not the sort of thing that succeeds too often - and they will be reluctant to squeeze a load of cement in given the connectivity to the producing interval in the 6 well. The alternative, a sidetrack, is likely just as costly and, even if it were to be done where would they direct the well bore ? Remember that these two wells are apparently so close to the top of the reservoir that at least one of them wandered out into the seal for some of the trajectory. So my best guess is they will treat the 6 well with kid gloves, and bean it up ever so carefully whilst watching the OWC like a hawk. All the signs are that the OWC is quite close below these two wells, and they were above the (?? joint) critical rate for at least the 7z well and perhaps the 6 well.

More likely in respect of Lancaster is a #8 well if they can find the cash. It is safer, and would prove up more in every way. But cash is the problem. That is a problem for the CFO to solve, and it likely involves dilution just as with the bonds.

I think the OGA are quite likely to consent Lincoln crestal for tieback if they can put the field determination to bed. If they cannot solve determination then I can't see how drilling another hole would allow tieback of that either. So the field determination issue needs to be solved, one way or another. There is more than one way to solve it .... (The PI is not so good, is it.)

In the success case(s) these remain big structures and could be quite valuable. I will be interested to see if the company start putting proper data in shareholder hands - a cross section of the 6 and 7z wells is long overdue, as are the calculations on coning, and overlays onto the imaged fracture sets ........ And of course when they put those slides up, the question will be when did the board first see that data set ? Remember Kerogen sit on the board.

(I can't see production getting to 40k bopd for a few years, even in the success case, so I think they will get allowed to flare and the WOSPs tie-in and cash .... will get pushed right)

The current board include some heavy-weight 'fixers'. They have been put in because this is still an interesting enough proposition to warrant their attention. It ought to still warrant ours. But I won't be going back in until I am happy with the risk/reward balance.

regards, dspp

pijoe1212
Posts: 39
Joined: September 18th, 2018, 12:17 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#318896

Postby pijoe1212 » June 16th, 2020, 6:20 pm

dspp wrote:
(I can't see production getting to 40k bopd for a few years, even in the success case, so I think they will get allowed to flare and the WOSPs tie-in and cash .... will get pushed right)



regards, dspp


i was talking with an AIM oil co CEO today. i now understand just how far up the key matters agenda "green" issues are. i would not expect an easy ride on anything related to flare use.

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#318922

Postby dspp » June 16th, 2020, 8:59 pm

pijoe1212 wrote:
dspp wrote:
(I can't see production getting to 40k bopd for a few years, even in the success case, so I think they will get allowed to flare and the WOSPs tie-in and cash .... will get pushed right)



regards, dspp


i was talking with an AIM oil co CEO today. i now understand just how far up the key matters agenda "green" issues are. i would not expect an easy ride on anything related to flare use.


Pjoe,
About 20-years ago the energy dept of the developing country I was in came out to see me about flaring. Er, and the continuation of our licence. This is not as new as you might think.
Regards,
Dspp

Howyoudoin
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1254
Joined: June 4th, 2018, 7:58 pm
Has thanked: 602 times
Been thanked: 686 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#318930

Postby Howyoudoin » June 16th, 2020, 9:33 pm

Probably just me but I fancy another nibble at this level.

Both HUR and Ceres Power keep tanking and recovering so often I can hardly keep up with it but incredibly i’m still sitting on a paper gain as things stand.

It’s a PITA having to declare every time you want to trade though and wait for Compliance to approve.

HYD

Proselenes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1372
Joined: November 15th, 2016, 6:04 am
Has thanked: 58 times
Been thanked: 389 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#324490

Postby Proselenes » July 8th, 2020, 7:07 am

News today.

Water cut on well 6 now up to 11% from the previous 8%.............................

Proselenes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1372
Joined: November 15th, 2016, 6:04 am
Has thanked: 58 times
Been thanked: 389 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#324496

Postby Proselenes » July 8th, 2020, 7:19 am

Not really imo.

Note the advance warning of "Material Downgrade".

That may mean that its fatal, in that the contingent resources will be so low afterwards, that they might just call it a day and pack it in.

For me thats the CYA for the board.........no matter what happens now, everyone has been warned the downgrade could be material to the point of being fatal for the future.

Proselenes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1372
Joined: November 15th, 2016, 6:04 am
Has thanked: 58 times
Been thanked: 389 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#324509

Postby Proselenes » July 8th, 2020, 8:02 am

They only mentioned reviewing in June, and possible shallower OWC.

This RNS they have specifically mentioned a "material downgrade".

That suggests to me this is their "get out of jail free card"..........they know its going to be material and now, they have officially warned everyone. No comeback on them if the material downgrade is a killer.

Thats my view on it anyway.

StepOne
Lemon Slice
Posts: 668
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:17 am
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#324530

Postby StepOne » July 8th, 2020, 9:39 am

Proselenes wrote:They only mentioned reviewing in June, and possible shallower OWC.

This RNS they have specifically mentioned a "material downgrade".


Everyone knows the next CPR will have resources materially lower than the previous CPR given last year's drilling results. That's obvious isn't it?

Proselenes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1372
Joined: November 15th, 2016, 6:04 am
Has thanked: 58 times
Been thanked: 389 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#324540

Postby Proselenes » July 8th, 2020, 10:31 am

StepOne wrote:
Proselenes wrote:They only mentioned reviewing in June, and possible shallower OWC.

This RNS they have specifically mentioned a "material downgrade".


Everyone knows the next CPR will have resources materially lower than the previous CPR given last year's drilling results. That's obvious isn't it?




The word "material" is the new thing. A material change is something which drastically has an effect on the business.

If it has said "downgrade" on its own, not so bad........expected. its says "material downgrade".......so this is going to be a biggie. Might even be the end of HUR if the new estimate is too small.

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#324541

Postby dspp » July 8th, 2020, 10:37 am

For the benefit of anyone looking in later, RNS out this morning, some snippets below:
------
https://ir.q4europe.com/Solutions/Hurri ... d=14747996
RNS Number : 3204S Hurricane Energy PLC 08 July 2020

PROD
Since the Company's last update on 8 June 2020, the 205/21a-6 well on the Lancaster field has produced at an average rate of c. 12,000 bopd. The increase in oil production from the 205/21a-6 well implemented on 5 June 2020 has, as expected, been accompanied by an increase in produced water. Prior to commissioning of the Electric Submersible Pumps ("ESPs"), the volume of water production from the 205/21a-6 well represented a water cut of c.11% compared to 8% immediately prior to 5 June.

Following the relaxation of COVID-19 restraints on UKCS offshore operations, on 3 July 2020 the Company began commissioning the ESPs in the Lancaster production wells. Both the 205/21a-6 and 205/21a-7z wells are currently flowing with use of the ESPs and delivering combined production of c.15,000 bopd. The Company plans to continue testing both wells on ESPs for a short period of up to two weeks before finalising its near-term production strategy. Further updates, including a stabilised water production rate, will be announced in due course.

REVIEW
The outcome of the technical review may lead to a material downgrade of these contingent resource estimates. Any such revisions would be formally reflected in a new Competent Person's Report, currently scheduled for release no later than the end of Q1 2021.

LNCOLN-WARWICK
The Oil and Gas Authority ("OGA") has given notice to the GWA joint venture of a proposed field determination area over local structural closure at the Lincoln discovery.

------
My take,

1. Implicit in this is that the well PIs have both continued to fall. That can be a function both of what is driving the fluids to the well, and the nature of the fluids being lifted (i.e. they get heavier the more water there is).
2. The #6 well, flowing on its own, under natural flow has continued to increase in water cut. To my mind this indicates a high OWC that is being sucked in from below, and that water flow path is becoming preferred and the 'cone' (though it will not be a perfect cone given the fracture network) is becoming more firmly established. On this trajectory the #6 well would eventually cut so much water that it too would start slugging, just as the #7z well did. Slugging can cause equipment damage, and poorer functioning, and ultimately a well simply ceases to flow.
3. They have clearly not tried to flow the #7z well naturally again, because of the slugging. This indicates that the watercut in the #7z well had become too great, and the PI too little, for the #7z well to flow naturally in a sufficiently steady manner to be produceable.
4. There is no allusion to temperature profiles, chemistry signatures, or wet seaweed fronds as being suggestive of perched water. No actual evidence has ever been put forwards by the company in support of this, only asides. Given the complete absence of that evidence, and given the way in which all the actual evidence presented is consistent with water entry from below, then it seems to me that the local OWC in the area of the structure immediately below these two wells is relatively high up in the structure. All the evidence in the public domain suggests this is 'coned' water, not perched water. As such it will not get produced out and will in fact only ever increase unless water shut-offs create temporary reprieves (which I very much doubt will be worth it on a CBA basis).
5. They did not find a natural flow rate at which the cone in the 6 well did not worsen, this means that the water is too close to, and too mobile, for a critical rate to be established. That means that there is no pathway to a stable watercut that does not increase.
6. They can - and are - able to run both the #6 and #7z wells simultaneously on ESPs for the time being. This increases the oil production from the 12,000 bopd (#6 alone, natural) to 15,000 bopd (#6 + #7z, lifted). So only 3,000 extra bOpd. They have not given a watercut associated with that combo, which means they have only recently (3-July) started it, and what ordinarily happens is that as the cone below #7z relaxes an area of localised increased oil ingresses that then gets sucked out on ESP startup giving a temporary dry oil blip, then the cone fully re-establishes and worsens. My best guess is that they will not find a stable watercut on lifted flow, and that it will simply continue to worsen and it will be a matter of deciding what is the acceptable rate of increase vs the short term production.
7. They are sufficiently confident from a flow assurance perspective to hedge for an average 10k bopd for 6m. That gives us some insight into what timeline the company expects before the ESPs would (if ever) experience too much slugging and/or gas breakout and/or exceeds the AM FPSO waterhandling, i.e. at least 6m. It may be that they can see flow assurance beyond that, but felt that they could take a longer term view on a better floor price at a later date, but that they needed cash assurance in the shorter term, i.e. the board is now being a lot less gung ho.

8. Material downgrade. No sh1t sherlock.

9. IMHO implicit is the OGA will post-determination give them sufficient sanction for the Lincoln Crestal tie-back, which may by then be at a compatible pressure, flow rate, and PI to match the AM EPS facilities.

10. (This was not in the RNS, but is something I have been pondering). There is a material difference in LinWar API (lighter, gassier) deeper and to the south, then north and higher to Lan (slightly heavier, less gassy). Then look further north to Halifax and one has to wonder if it will be sufficiently shallow as to be even heavier API. That in turn means that the API might be materially more viscous and so flow less well in the fracture system (if the fracture system is viable up there).

There is plenty of room for this to be downgraded to a fizzle. There is some potential for a pathway to developments that might eke out a return. There is a faint hope of more than that, but not at this point enough to make me interested in a punt. The board are being a lot more candid and less skewed in their presentation of the data. There is at least one very heavyweight fixer on the board who Ker have brought in to get the best possible outcome - but we do not know the identity of the bondholders and so we do not know whether Ker's interests are fully aligned with private equity-only interests. At 10-15kbpod, worsening, those bonds are not going to get repaid or rolled painlessly.

regards, dspp


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests