Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)
Posted: December 24th, 2019, 1:04 pm
AM TANKER UPLIFTS - updated listing, note HUR's oil sales are as of date of lift, not date of offload at a refinery.
#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 = 421,680 bbls @ approx 32 days lift-to-lift, so approx 13k bopd (*5) (PETRO ATLANTIC), cum = 778,109 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 = 1,234,389 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 = 1,699,389 bbls
#5, approx 13 Oct, 2019, 59,000 tons = 444,270 bbls @ approx 27 days lift-to-lift, so approx 16.5k bopd (*4) (NAVION OCEANIA), cum = 2,143,659 bbls
#6, approx 13 Nov 2019, .............. = 350k bbls @ approx 31 days lift-to-lift, so approx 11.3k bopd (*6) (NAVION OCEANIA), cum = 2.45 mln bbs (assume 350k for lift #7, so lift #6 must have been cum 2.45 mln bbls)
#7, approx 22 Dec 2019, .............. = 350k bbls @ approx 42 days lift-to-lift, so approx 8.3k bopd (*6) (STENA NATALITA), cum = 2.8 mln bbls
*1 : It is 38 API, so 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
*4 : using Amaja's report of 58-60,000 tons with some empty tanks on this occasion.
*5 : the original data on this #2 lift yields a conversion factor of 8.124 bbls/mt because various information sources gave both a mt number and a bbl number (initially 56,000 tons = 455,000 bbls), which I noted as a problem (*1). However subsequently some of my other numbers used this erroneous conversion. I have (17/18-10-2019) been alerted to this by divecentre and recalculated them all to be consistent using the 7.53 factor. The recalculation affects #2, and thence #5 in earlier posts. Mea culpa.
*6 using HUR RNS 13 Dec 2019 that stated "Production since 20 September has averaged approximately 12,500 barrels of oil per day. This is below the average rate achieved since start-up due to individual well testing. Total production for the year is expected to be approximately 3.1 million barrels of oil, an average of 13,300 barrels of oil per day from introduction of hydrocarbons on 11 May 2019. Hurricane is targeting a seventh lifting from the Aoka Mizu FPSO on or around 22 December 2019, taking total oil sales for the year to 2.8 million barrels. " to get insight into vols in lift #6 and lift #7.
(as always thanks to Amaja, divecentre, laserdisc, planetgong, londoner7, bountyhunter, etc)
==========
DSPP comment : this #7 lift and the RNS info implies that AM will be sitting with 300k bbls oil in her tanks on 31-Dec-19. The avge production numbers calculated above are always assuming AM pumps out to the same state on each occasion, which may well be an erroneous assumption. There is a possibility that what may be a reducing oil production rate is being constrained to fit within a) produced water handling limits, b) desirable drawdown limits on preferential production from one dry well, vs the other wetter well, or c) there are other factors and/or missing/misunderstood information. There is a possibility that draught-mark watchers may be misled depending on what they are doing with the produced water, i.e. there is a slight possibility it is being taken off by tanker in a segregated tank. This may be why they are no longer using Rotterdam as they wish to conceal any water development info because of its market sensitivity. Mind you that is just a possibility and is imho.
regards, dspp
#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 = 421,680 bbls @ approx 32 days lift-to-lift, so approx 13k bopd (*5) (PETRO ATLANTIC), cum = 778,109 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 = 1,234,389 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 = 1,699,389 bbls
#5, approx 13 Oct, 2019, 59,000 tons = 444,270 bbls @ approx 27 days lift-to-lift, so approx 16.5k bopd (*4) (NAVION OCEANIA), cum = 2,143,659 bbls
#6, approx 13 Nov 2019, .............. = 350k bbls @ approx 31 days lift-to-lift, so approx 11.3k bopd (*6) (NAVION OCEANIA), cum = 2.45 mln bbs (assume 350k for lift #7, so lift #6 must have been cum 2.45 mln bbls)
#7, approx 22 Dec 2019, .............. = 350k bbls @ approx 42 days lift-to-lift, so approx 8.3k bopd (*6) (STENA NATALITA), cum = 2.8 mln bbls
*1 : It is 38 API, so 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
*4 : using Amaja's report of 58-60,000 tons with some empty tanks on this occasion.
*5 : the original data on this #2 lift yields a conversion factor of 8.124 bbls/mt because various information sources gave both a mt number and a bbl number (initially 56,000 tons = 455,000 bbls), which I noted as a problem (*1). However subsequently some of my other numbers used this erroneous conversion. I have (17/18-10-2019) been alerted to this by divecentre and recalculated them all to be consistent using the 7.53 factor. The recalculation affects #2, and thence #5 in earlier posts. Mea culpa.
*6 using HUR RNS 13 Dec 2019 that stated "Production since 20 September has averaged approximately 12,500 barrels of oil per day. This is below the average rate achieved since start-up due to individual well testing. Total production for the year is expected to be approximately 3.1 million barrels of oil, an average of 13,300 barrels of oil per day from introduction of hydrocarbons on 11 May 2019. Hurricane is targeting a seventh lifting from the Aoka Mizu FPSO on or around 22 December 2019, taking total oil sales for the year to 2.8 million barrels. " to get insight into vols in lift #6 and lift #7.
(as always thanks to Amaja, divecentre, laserdisc, planetgong, londoner7, bountyhunter, etc)
==========
DSPP comment : this #7 lift and the RNS info implies that AM will be sitting with 300k bbls oil in her tanks on 31-Dec-19. The avge production numbers calculated above are always assuming AM pumps out to the same state on each occasion, which may well be an erroneous assumption. There is a possibility that what may be a reducing oil production rate is being constrained to fit within a) produced water handling limits, b) desirable drawdown limits on preferential production from one dry well, vs the other wetter well, or c) there are other factors and/or missing/misunderstood information. There is a possibility that draught-mark watchers may be misled depending on what they are doing with the produced water, i.e. there is a slight possibility it is being taken off by tanker in a segregated tank. This may be why they are no longer using Rotterdam as they wish to conceal any water development info because of its market sensitivity. Mind you that is just a possibility and is imho.
regards, dspp