Donate to Remove ads

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

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Hurricane Energy (HUR)

PeterGray
Lemon Slice
Posts: 847
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 781 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#290736

Postby PeterGray » March 14th, 2020, 12:22 pm

All those options, or variations seem possible.

However, the big questions for me are can HUR show that Lancaster can produce OK, and we will know more in the next couple of weeks, and will the PoO recover to at least some extent (which in my view is likely over the next 6 months or so - SA and RUS have massively cut their revenues and they either need something to show for it, or find some form of compromise).

If the answer to both of those is yes, and I still regard that as likely, then HUR could continue to go it alone, at least until the converts are due. To an extent the outcome then will depend on the outlook nearer the time - if the PoO has recovered, EPS production is going well, and the commitment wells, and possibly L8 have gone OK, then I would think raising funds to pay off the convert - or reaching agreement to extend are quite possible, though likely costly.

I can't see HUR going the route of massive dilution to move to an FFD, or partial full development.

Certainly, even in the best case, incremental development is going to add less value than a good deal with a deep pocketed partner for FFD would have done, but it could still produce signicant sp appreciation from here. But certainly a low offer from PE might have a chance of success they way things are going, and if the CMD is less than totally positive.

And I don't yet write off the GWA. Clearly the results of last year's drilling were not what was hoped for, but there is a lot of analysis to be done, and with Spirit up for sale it's no surprise they are not rushing to commint to phase 2 yet. That doesn't mean they, or their new owners, will not in time. In a more rational PoO environment I can't see the GWA just being written off on the basis of the drilling so far. (Whether HUR will still be around to benefit is another issue!)

tournesol
Lemon Pip
Posts: 64
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:01 am
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#291042

Postby tournesol » March 15th, 2020, 5:22 pm

There are several different but inter-related questions here.

For investors the single central question that needs to be answered is right out of Goldilocks.
"Can we expect the undrilled portion of Lancaster - which is most of it - to look like the EPS wells and to support robust production? (Baby Bear's porridge) or will it be like Warwick and be unproductive? (Daddy Bear's porridge) Or will it be like Lincoln and be somewhere in between (Mummy Bear's porridge)"

For geologists and reservoir engineers, the question can be expanded.
Based on six months of EPS and all the drilling data that has been obtained from last year's three wells, what is the revised model for the fractured basement reservoir across the entire Rona Ridge? What are current reasonable expectations for future recoveries at Lancaster and elsewhere?

The EPS appears to be going very well - better than expected. But the water cut is much higher than expected so raises concerns as to its origins. Is it perched water or is it being drawn from the underlying aquifer? Or both? And why is it affecting one of the EPS wells but not the other?


For corporate development folk, the question is:
The results of the two wells drilled on Warwick were very very disappointing. The third well, on Lincoln, was not as good as the Lancaster wells but seemed OKish. But for reasons yet to be explained the plan to tie it back to the EPS has been cancelled. Why?

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

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#291255

Postby dspp » March 16th, 2020, 12:52 pm

Has anyone seen an offload size for the recent PetroAtlantic lift #10 that took place approx 10 March, destination was Rotterdam so ought to have some info ?

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)

#291646

Postby dspp » March 17th, 2020, 2:41 pm

I've not seen any data whatsoever on the #10 offload so I'm taking a guess that they did another medium sized one to get the AM tanks as empty as reasonably possible so as to get ahead of the weather. If the information that is issued in the coming weeks allows me to correct any errors I may revise this.

Centrica really are struggling (https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ritish-gas) and so I don't think Spirit will be up for any capex they can avoid. I also don't think they'll be getting much for the assets - I would unfortunately put Spirit at risk of being pillaged by Ineos, which is exactly the sort of business partner HUR could do without, very much like riding a hungry tiger with no saddle and no bridle and no whip.

Capitulation in the PI market is very obvious, and the semi-pro smallbeer traders. The more interesting thing of course is what exactly has been going on with the IIS and the bondholders, and what those convertible clauses say and how they are being played.

Image
Image

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)

#291881

Postby dspp » March 18th, 2020, 9:11 am

ReallyVeryFoolish wrote:Our friend dspp is exactly right here. INEOS, mainly Sir Jim Ratcliffe is most definitely not your friend in business. Much as I admire the business he has built from nothing, INEOS targets distressed assets available for 40% of book value, or free or even better INEOS gets paid to take ownership of the business. Then, they sweat the assets like never before. They are good at it. They make a lot of money. Spirit may well be the kind of distressed business that sets Sir Jim's tentacles twitching. Alas, HUR is not. For that I am very grateful. (Now, a bid from INEOS will arrive addressed to Dr T, for certain).


Yeah, what you don't want to hear is that INEOS have bought out all the convertibles, and now they're prepared to disclose the default terms .....

regards, dspp

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

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#291883

Postby FabianBjornseth » March 18th, 2020, 9:14 am

dspp wrote:I've not seen any data whatsoever on the #10 offload so I'm taking a guess that they did another medium sized one to get the AM tanks as empty as reasonably possible so as to get ahead of the weather. If the information that is issued in the coming weeks allows me to correct any errors I may revise this.


The hypothetical volume suggests an average rate of 31 585 bbl/d between this and the previous offloading, more than 50% above the constrained rate. Of course, the previous offload may not have fully emptied the vessel.

It will be very interesting to see what CAPEX guidance HUR announces at the CMD. With the $230mm bond maturing July 24th 2022, any investment that doesn't pay back by then increases the financial risk of the company. With a proposed start-up in Q1 2022, the Lancaster -8 well is unlikely to meet that criteria.

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

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#291933

Postby dspp » March 18th, 2020, 10:56 am

ReallyVeryFoolish wrote:
FabianBjornseth wrote:
dspp wrote:I've not seen any data whatsoever on the #10 offload so I'm taking a guess that they did another medium sized one to get the AM tanks as empty as reasonably possible so as to get ahead of the weather. If the information that is issued in the coming weeks allows me to correct any errors I may revise this.


The hypothetical volume suggests an average rate of 31 585 bbl/d between this and the previous offloading, more than 50% above the constrained rate. Of course, the previous offload may not have fully emptied the vessel.

It will be very interesting to see what CAPEX guidance HUR announces at the CMD. With the $230mm bond maturing July 24th 2022, any investment that doesn't pay back by then increases the financial risk of the company. With a proposed start-up in Q1 2022, the Lancaster -8 well is unlikely to meet that criteria.

Maybe I misunderstand? >30k barrels a day oil production from Aoka Mizu? Suely not possible from two wells and it would exceed their flaring consent from the regulators?


RVF & FB,

The view I took is that AM was likely loaded full immediately prior to the #9 offload, but that would have left about 250k bbls in the AM tanks after the #9 offload. Whether they took a slightly small offload because they had to a) leave extra in the AM for motion alleviation, or b) because the offload was itself weather-curtailed, or c) some other reason, I cannot be sure. However in the #10 offload I think they will have sucked approx 170k bbls of recent production, plus 240k bbls of what was previously left in the AM tanks after the #9 offload, to give a guestimated 414k bbls total offload. If they were producing at 20k then that #10 offload may be correspondingly larger, and if HUR ever deign to tell us I will update accordingly.

That's the basis of my guesstimate, and by extension I have no particular insight into actual current production levels. Which is of course exactly as HUR intended when they set these dates for the CMD ! They weren't selecting these dates so as to put themselves under any informational pressure or in any way into an uncontrolled informational situation.

regards, dspp

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

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#292190

Postby FabianBjornseth » March 19th, 2020, 8:00 am

o A 10-metre water zone in the 205/21a-7Z well has been identified which is interpreted as perched water. Whilst water cut has increased over time, such behaviour is consistent with the perched water model. To date, water cut has not impacted on production guidance


This seems to be good news. If the water zone can be identified from logs, it should be possible to map it on the vertical wells drilled, and it could be further appraised with other delination wells. This can then inform STOIIP estimates, drainage strategy, well placement, completion design and other technical aspects. It is significantly worse to have produced water from a source that cannot be identified. Expect more details on this at the CMD.

o As production continues the wells are experiencing increasing pressure support from the reservoir


Not really telling much, as we don't know how this pressure support compares with the base case reservoir model. More to be revealed here as well.

· 'Lincoln Crestal' well (205/26b-14)
o Well to be plugged and abandoned by 22 June 2020, since the GWA partners have been unable to obtain an extension to the terms of the suspension consent or to obtain the other consents required to tie the well back to the Aoka Mizu FPSO


There's probably more to this story than what's being told here. Bottom line, GWA short and mid-term plans will be limited to the minimum requirements to meet the licence commitments, which might be a blessing in disguise considering the current oil price.

Going Concern and Assessment of Longer-term Prospects
...
The range of downside scenarios tested was carefully considered by the directors, factoring in the potential impact, probability of occurrence and effectiveness of the mitigating actions, where appropriate; and was updated to take into account the emerging risk of COVID-19 and its impact on oil supply and demand, uptime assumptions and potential wider impact. The review also considered the minimum daily production rate from the Lancaster EPS that would be required at a given oil price that would allow the Group to cover its operating costs, overheads and debt repayments. The downside scenarios applied to the corporate model, in isolation and in combination, were:

• an oil price assumption of $30 per barrel (flat) until the end of the third quarter of 2020, rising to $40 per barrel in the fourth quarter, and $50 per barrel (flat) from January 2021 onwards; and

• a reduction in the average production rate on the EPS as compared to the planned rate by 25%;

The results of the review demonstrated that the Group would have sufficient liquidity to meet its ongoing liabilities whilst also allowing it to invest in certain capital projects. Subject to being able to refinance the Bond, should that action be required, the board has a reasonable expectation that the Company will be able to continue in operation and meet its liabilities as they fall due over the period of assessment; as under certain downside scenarios, and assuming no other mitigating actions were taken (for example cancelling, postponing or reducing the scope of some capital projects) it is forecast that the Group would not have sufficient cash available to fully redeem the Convertible Bond which falls due in July 2022 without raising additional equity or refinancing the Bond, should the Bonds not convert into Ordinary Shares.


This would seem fairly robust, except the oil price is already down to $25/bbl.

Capital Allocation: Risk Management and Priorities
...
The Board will therefore prioritise existing cash and the allocation of cash flow from operations towards creating a strong balance sheet with an ample cash cushion to absorb downside risks and meet future financial liabilities, before working towards delivering a suitable combination of shareholder returns, and a strictly controlled capital spending programme at the appropriate time in the future. Capital spending will be focussed on licence obligations and drilling options to maximise shareholder value uplift at minimum cost.

Our shareholders have contributed substantial risk capital to bring Hurricane to first oil, and it is a Company priority to deliver a return for their patience and commitment. Future investment decisions will take into account share price performance and the need to preserve and increase value for shareholders.


Sounds very reasonable. Indications that they are doing what they can to avoid further dilution. Tie yourself to the mast and brace for the ride.

PeterGray
Lemon Slice
Posts: 847
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 781 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#292224

Postby PeterGray » March 19th, 2020, 9:17 am

'Lincoln Crestal' well (205/26b-14)
o Well to be plugged and abandoned by 22 June 2020, since the GWA partners have been unable to obtain an extension to the terms of the suspension consent or to obtain the other consents required to tie the well back to the Aoka Mizu FPSO


There's probably more to this story than what's being told here.


I agree, that's one of the issues that stuck out to me. Why are they having difficulty getting consents for the tie back? Surely they would have looked into what was likely required before they started planning for a tie back a year or more ago?

I'm not clear what the OGA looks at in these cases, but could it be that they reckoned it was only marginally commercial, and didn't want a tie back that wouldn't get much use. They want more proof of the field before agreeing? As you say, it certainly suits Spirit and HUR to be able postpone that capex for now at least.

Overall, I'm happy that they seem to be convinced they do have a viable model to explain the water, and they have certainly been able to produce at 20k. I look forward to more detail at the CMD shortly

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

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#292235

Postby dspp » March 19th, 2020, 9:41 am

PeterGray wrote:'Lincoln Crestal' well (205/26b-14)
o Well to be plugged and abandoned by 22 June 2020, since the GWA partners have been unable to obtain an extension to the terms of the suspension consent or to obtain the other consents required to tie the well back to the Aoka Mizu FPSO


There's probably more to this story than what's being told here.


I agree, that's one of the issues that stuck out to me. Why are they having difficulty getting consents for the tie back? Surely they would have looked into what was likely required before they started planning for a tie back a year or more ago?

I'm not clear what the OGA looks at in these cases, but could it be that they reckoned it was only marginally commercial, and didn't want a tie back that wouldn't get much use. They want more proof of the field before agreeing? As you say, it certainly suits Spirit and HUR to be able postpone that capex for now at least.

Overall, I'm happy that they seem to be convinced they do have a viable model to explain the water, and they have certainly been able to produce at 20k. I look forward to more detail at the CMD shortly


A tieback such as this is in essence a (limited) field development authorization. The words / terminology will vary from country to country, but national authorities typical ask for all of the following to be demonstrated:
1 - maintenance of technical integrity through life, plus;
2 - maintenance of flow assurance through life, plus;
3 - capital adequacy & provision to properly retrieve the flowlines etc & plug & abandon the well at end of life (aka tidy up neatly), plus;
4 - demonstration that this is a reasonable commercial risk that it would be in the national interest to take over the field life.

Personally I can see potential issues with all of those, it is a very low PI for such a long tie back, and the commercial case is weak, and the combination (plus perhaps Spirits reluctance) is what tipped the decision against the tie back. Which straw broke the camel's back is not necessarily important.

On your other point they had to plan ahead for a tie back in order to be ready, and they were taking the view that at least one of the three 2019 horizontals drilled in LinWar would be suitable for tie back so that was a reasonable risk back then, with the fallback of using the tieback kit on a Lancaster producer. It turns out that the fallback is being brought into play. Let's hope that works as intended !

I will read the rest later, day job now. It is obvious that they are very delicately trying to stay out of the bondholders' hands .........

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)

#292385

Postby dspp » March 19th, 2020, 2:47 pm

My notes on HUR 2019 full year results. Overall much as I expected and we have all discussed:

- Confirmation of not tieing back Lincoln Crestal. Perhaps flowing it at a significant & economic rate, and still arriving at the AM at a compatible pressure to enter the AM’s production system, for the anticipated economic life, without considerable topsides expense & complexity (& space & weight) might have been the final straw. Maybe we will find out one day.
- Confirmation that LinWar reservoir properties poorer than Lancaster, i.e. it was not drilling issues or poor target selection, it was the overall LinWar quality.
- Confirmation that so far our estimates of production are about right (over 2.9 mln bbls sold over 7 lifts, vs 2.84 mln in our estimates) (specifically proceeds of $170.3m / $59.3 realised = 2.87m bbls by my sums, so I am not quite sure that their “over” is correct). Good IPS uptime, 90%, that aspect now largely derisked.
- Now at 20k bopd (presumably bopd, maybe bpd, ambiguous)
- Confirmation that after delivering on regulatory commitments they cannot at present be certain of meeting bond repayments. Hence going concern statement and the running of all the sensitivities.
- So they will be doing their absolute best to push right anything that is non-regulatory in nature unless they can clear the bond financing hurdle. That is key. This means they will really struggle with the Lancaster #8 and the WOSPS gas tie in, and therefore the 40k bopd target. Unless either oil price gives better news, or bond finance is raised/rolled, or M&A / farmin occurs. Bootstrapping is hard !
- Very little new news about watercut in Lancaster beyond a very minimalistic “A 10-metre water zone in the 205/21a-7Z well has been identified which is interpreted as perched water. Whilst water cut has increased over time, such behaviour is consistent with the perched water model.“. Wait until 25 March for more info. Remains a very big risk item.
- LSE Main Board governance provisions satisfied
- It was OGA that requested Whirlwind & Strathmore relinquishment. The OGA must be showing teeth these days.
- No note re AM lease extension from 6yrs to 10yrs, so we watch with interest.
- No hedging strategy (which I agree with btw)
- My guess is AS went due to disagreements over how/if to manage the bod refinancing risk. The number of “subject to’s” is notable.

Now we wait until 25 March to see what we will be allowed to know.

regards, dspp

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

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#292461

Postby FabianBjornseth » March 19th, 2020, 5:34 pm

dspp wrote:- No hedging strategy (which I agree with btw)


Just a question - why wouldn't a company like HUR hedge a significant amount of their production? With all the operational and subsurface risks associated with the EPS, wouldn't it be attractive to limit the exposure to fluctuations in the oil price?

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

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#292471

Postby dspp » March 19th, 2020, 6:20 pm

FabianBjornseth wrote:
dspp wrote:- No hedging strategy (which I agree with btw)


Just a question - why wouldn't a company like HUR hedge a significant amount of their production? With all the operational and subsurface risks associated with the EPS, wouldn't it be attractive to limit the exposure to fluctuations in the oil price?


Earlier on they couldn't be sure of the actual production volume or timings. That would have been the main problem in the early months.

Now there are still concerns about volume (ie watercut) but they are lessening. However there is not a concern about short term cashflow as they do have plenty of cash in the bank (just not enough for the bonds in 2yrs time). Therefore, given that the oil price is at a very low point, there is very little upside in hedging now, but there is considerable downside in hedging now. So on balance I still wouldn't hedge the oilprice if I was in their shoes.

regards, dspp

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#292606

Postby dealtn » March 20th, 2020, 9:51 am

FabianBjornseth wrote:
dspp wrote:- No hedging strategy (which I agree with btw)


Just a question - why wouldn't a company like HUR hedge a significant amount of their production? With all the operational and subsurface risks associated with the EPS, wouldn't it be attractive to limit the exposure to fluctuations in the oil price?


From a finance theory perspective they don't need to. As long as they are open about their policy (and this applies to all such companies) then investors know where they stand. The decision to hedge, or not, can be taken at investor level.

Obviously this isn't practical at "retail investor" level, but applies to more substantial professional investors. It's not hugely different to decisions whether to hedge interest rates, fx rates etc. as long as investors are aware they can "adjust" accordingly, which in some cases will mean taking an "opposite" hedge to the one the underlying company may have taken.

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

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#293858

Postby dspp » March 24th, 2020, 10:59 pm

CMD postponed
==
RNS Number : 4629H Hurricane Energy PLC 24 March 2020

Hurricane Energy plc

Operational Update

Hurricane Energy plc, the UK based oil and gas company focused on hydrocarbon resources in naturally fractured basement reservoirs, provides an operational update following recent developments in the UK government response to COVID-19.

Capital Markets Day 2020 Postponement
The Company had been due to host a Capital Markets Day ("CMD") on 25 March 2020, to be conducted as a filmed webcast. Owing to the recent intensification of restrictions on movement implemented in the UK in response to COVID-19, it is no longer possible to host the event as planned. A further update will be provided to the market once a new date and format for this event has been confirmed, taking into account government guidance on the nature and duration of these restrictions as they evolve.

Oil and Gas Authority Statement Re: COVID-19
We have been reviewing government restrictions and industry measures emplaced to combat the spread of COVID-19. We therefore welcome today's announcement from the Oil and Gas Authority, the regulator for the UK oil and gas industry, that it plans to take a flexible approach and we have engaged with them on this basis.

Market Environment
The impact of COVID-19 is unprecedented and, as we previously announced on 19 March 2020, we expect the oil industry to be increasingly affected. Since then, operators on the UK Continental Shelf have faced increasing challenges from travel restrictions on the offshore workforce and a significantly depressed oil price. Whilst the Lancaster Early Production System ("EPS") has cash operating costs of $17 per barrel at current production levels and oil prices, operating cash flow from the Lancaster EPS will be materially lower than previously forecasted for an indeterminate period. Hurricane has a strong balance sheet, including $164.3 million of unrestricted cash (at 18 March 2020) and is therefore in a strong position to weather this current downturn. However, should this change in the market environment persist, it is likely to have a material impact on our capacity to fund capital expenditure.

Operational Update
Oil production from the Lancaster EPS continues in line with previous updates, at approximately 20,000 barrels of oil per day. Guidance for 2020 remains at 18,000 barrels of oil per day, taking into account an assumed 90% uptime and production to date.
A more detailed update will be provided as part of the Company's regular quarterly production reporting next due in early April.

Annual Report and AGM
Hurricane notes the recent announcement by the Financial Conduct Authority on 21 March 2020 requesting that, as a result of COVID-19 uncertainties, all listed companies should observe a moratorium on the publication of preliminary financial statements for at least two weeks. Hurricane has already released its preliminary unaudited results for the year ended 31 December 2019 and currently expects no delay in releasing its annual report and accounts, containing its audited results for the year ended 31 December 2019, in April. However, the Company will closely monitor further measures should they have an impact on our reporting timetable.
Hurricane's 2020 AGM is currently scheduled to take place on 3 June 2020 at the Royal Society in central London. We will continue to monitor the potential impact of COVID-19 restrictions on the feasibility of continuing to hold this event in the normal format. We are examining possible different formats and venues, so as to be able to proceed with the event whilst mitigating risks to those involved. It is currently anticipated that all shareholders will be encouraged to lodge their vote via proxy ahead of the AGM.

Dr Robert Trice, Chief Executive of Hurricane, commented:
"COVID-19 has had an unprecedented impact on all aspects of daily life. Having already cancelled the in-person element of the CMD, we were looking forward to providing a detailed update by webcast. The latest restrictions make even that unviable.
"2019 proved to be a transformational year for Hurricane. The market environment and the oil industry in 2020 pose significant challenges but we continue to see good production performance and data gathering at Lancaster, at low operating costs. Our understanding of the reservoir continues to improve day by day and I look forward to reporting on this once the rearranged CMD is able to be held."

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

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#293878

Postby FabianBjornseth » March 25th, 2020, 6:25 am

May someone enlighten me as to how travel restrictions prevent a webcast from going through? Short of a poor web connection at the presenters' residences, I struggle to understand this. There are of course many other reasons why this may not be a great time to unveil the data from Lancaster, be they good or bad, so it's not straightforward to interpret the message one way or the other.

The OGA news is welcome though - deferring the committment appraisal wells may significantly reduce the financial risk of the company.

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

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#293908

Postby dspp » March 25th, 2020, 8:20 am

FabianBjornseth wrote:May someone enlighten me as to how travel restrictions prevent a webcast from going through? Short of a poor web connection at the presenters' residences, I struggle to understand this. There are of course many other reasons why this may not be a great time to unveil the data from Lancaster, be they good or bad, so it's not straightforward to interpret the message one way or the other.

The OGA news is welcome though - deferring the committment appraisal wells may significantly reduce the financial risk of the company.


And hopefully giving time for a solution to be found for the Lincoln Crestal well that must otherwise be P&A. Even suspending it for a few years may assist from a data gathering perspective (pressure observations), plus keeping alive the option of an eventual tieback if (the hypothesised) issue is technical & solvable rather rather tan commercial & unsolvable.

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)

#293909

Postby dspp » March 25th, 2020, 8:22 am

FabianBjornseth wrote:May someone enlighten me as to how travel restrictions prevent a webcast from going through? Short of a poor web connection at the presenters' residences, I struggle to understand this. There are of course many other reasons why this may not be a great time to unveil the data from Lancaster, be they good or bad, so it's not straightforward to interpret the message one way or the other.

The OGA news is welcome though - deferring the committment appraisal wells may significantly reduce the financial risk of the company.


There is a difference between a webcast of a conference room, and a webcast of a webconference. The UK has been lazy and slow to adopt the latter, whereas the US has moved fairly fast over the last few years to do so. Now this sluggishness is causing the UK / LSE / etc problems in catch up.

regards, dspp

PeterGray
Lemon Slice
Posts: 847
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 781 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#293951

Postby PeterGray » March 25th, 2020, 9:47 am

FB, I wondered for a short time why they weern't doing it as a webcast. But then I realised that just doing that at short notice, and by traditional techn iques requires having several people, including key staff in close proximity. A disappointing decision, but certainly the right on, and they are clear they are looking at ways to do it both safely and properly as soon as possible. I see nothing worrying about it.

And they wouldn't be making statements about producing at 20k, excluding normal downtimes, for the rest of the year if they weren't confident of their models.

PeterGray
Lemon Slice
Posts: 847
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 781 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: Hurricane Energy (HUR)

#293953

Postby PeterGray » March 25th, 2020, 9:50 am

And hopefully giving time for a solution to be found for the Lincoln Crestal well that must otherwise be P&A.

That's a point I hadn't considered,dspp. The case for the OGA for forcing HUR to go ahead with what looks like "non essential" work in the short term would be weak, so as you say, it seems likely that could be covered by their flexibility, which would be postive news..


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests