London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I would like to know whether VG5 is still planned for Q4.
I would like to know how the two Burnett wells have progressed after being under constrained flow after the swab.
I would like to know how VG4 is progressing and whether the gas tie in has now updated the constrained flow
I would like to know if production has increased
“For the six months ended 30 June 2019, the cumulative gross production of oil across the California portfolio was 15,407bbls (7,703bbls net to Reabold), inclusive of production during the development and testing programmes. Taking into account gas production, the total cumulative gross production during the six months ended 30 June 2019 was 17,840boe (8,920boe net to Reabold). Total oil sales for the period were 15,141bbls (7,570bbls net to Reabold) with a gross value of US$1,010,000 (US$404,000 net to Reabold).
With VG-4 now on unconstrained flow and the two Burnett wells coming into production, we expect to see a sharp increase in production in the near term, with additional drilling to follow.
For the two months to 31 August 2019, the cumulative gross production across the California portfolio was 17,124boe (8,562boe net to RBD)”
I thought VG4 tested at over 1,000 bopd?
It seems like the zealous news flow has dried up being replaced by BRR. Maybe the boys have been busy elsewhere
Jack - I’ve read something more than that. Permeability and porosity both mentioned.
Might have been a UJO presentation.
“The West Newton A-2 well exhibits encouraging porosities on logs and in core, particularly in the identified oil zone where in excess of 30 metres with good matrix porosities approaching 15 per cent. have been measured. The core also exhibits natural fracturing which is confirmed by an imaging log run across the entire Kirkham Abbey interval.”
Not invested here but just dropping by from UJO.
I’ve just seen you’re discussing permeability. There was an RNS that said WN has, or is expected to have, good porosity and permeability.
I can’t remember where I read that but I have a feeling it could have been one of your RNS’s. You have more detailed in yours than UJO give in theirs, hence I read yours.
I tr and find that for you,
Agree WWN. We should have more information regarding the timeline for the EWT going forward in the next 2 weeks. Next week will be UJO sorting out their funding shenanigans then we should know what’s happening soon afterward.
Not questioning your technical background, but I suspect you are reading too much in to limited information at this point. Regarding permeability, the company have told us the formation is naturally fractured which is certainly encouraging. They were also quite clear in stating that it is the switch from gas to oil that is the cause of the delay in the EWT. The relevant para is:
'Cased hole logging and completion programmes were initiated on 6 August 2019 followed by well test operations which commenced on 20 August 2019. However, with the indication of a potentially significant oil column, the EWT has been temporarily paused, in order to review and revise the well test design, which will now focus on the potentially highly significant oil column. The Operator is currently reviewing the forward plan including the potential to restart the flow test under a different test design, subject to all necessary approvals.'
I think we are waiting for all partners to align on the forward plan and funding. RBD seem to be ahead of the game on this, and it is only when others are complete that we will get more detailed info.
"Your “imaginary “ paragraph, could you comment further on such costs?"
I'm sorry, but I can't, really, because I haven't a clue what UK onshore rig dayrate figures are, nor the costs for a coiled tubing / nitrogen spread is. Maybe I could give a 'ballpark' figure, but it's likely to be wildly wrong, so I won't do so.
Instead, maybe we can look at what has been done so far, and what a possible alternative could have been.
Tha actual scenario. The well was drilled, logged, the completion string run, and the 'xmas tree' installed. Then the rig was rigged-down, mobilised off-site, and the test spread and CT equipment moved in. The CT injector head is rigged to the tree (using a mobile crane), and testing started. Had the well 'come in' naturally, with gas as expected, at some point the CT would have been rigged down and demobilised, and the EWT continued under natural flow.
A perfectly good, step-by-step plan. You have rig costs 'x' (by far the most costly single fixed expense, other than the well itself), followed by CT cost 'y' (including crane), then followed only by test spread costs 'z' for the duration of the EWT. From recollection, the time for rig-down and move of the rig through to the EWT starting was something like a month, maybe a bit more. (I'm too lazy to check).
With the rig remaining in place, instead of cost 'x' then followed by 'y+z' shortly followed by just 'z', you'd have had 'x+y+z' for a month at least.
As a very rough guess, this could have shoved an extra couple of million onto the bills. Maybe more, maybe less, I don't know, but it would be a significant expense. Such a 'rig in' version of operations is common, especially in remote locations where all contingencies have to be covered at the same time, and of course offshore. But that isn't the case at WN, so the plan as performed was perfectly acceptable.
I agree with you saying " why do we need further approval for an ESP which are widely utilised in the industry-shame that this had to be deduced from a Rathlin PR meeting." Yup, a poor show. And I still fail to see how the EA gets involved, except possibly approving the move back in of a workover rig, with the further truck traffic that entails, and other 'surface' considerations. However if 'on the ground' information is the only way we can get (sparse) information, let's hope there's some more!
I know for a fact that there are at least a couple of posters here who live not-too-distant from the wellsites. It would be interesting to know if there's any activity evident at either WNB od WNA locations, such as a foundation slab for the storage tank being laid at WNA, and whether WNB looks 'ready to go'. Of course, the bad weather may be having a negative effect at presen, but nowt to be done in that respect. Plus surely any local resident in the immediate vicinity will have been informed via 'community meetings' and suchlike whether any truck convoys are anticipated in the near future.
True Uggy, all we have are predictions, no news on hold up or what is the way forward, its like listening to football punters, overpaid hasbeens, come on be honest for once
Doubt it artyth S&S are proving themselvez rubbish on their pr with pi's. Many holders are becoming worried due to this, a bit of honesty fro. The BOD wouldn't go amiss with an update instead of appearing on stage managed platforms like BRR.
Let’s hope the lack of precise information on all fronts is due to ‘ price sensitive activities’ throughout the portfolio.:)
A double, I agree, see my post yesterday 6.04.
I appreciate your in depth knowledge on the technicals and practicals which is a catalyst for further financial analysis.
Your “imaginary “ paragraph, could you comment further on such costs?
The increased storage has already been approved to my knowledge, why do we need further approval for an ESP which are widely utilised in the industry-shame that this had to be deduced from a Rathlin PR meeting.
" my gut instinct still is to follow the money"
Yes, and mine too. (Just to underline the fact that although I'm raising some questions here, they still shouldn't be construed as 'deramping'.) Just because the SP has fallen back to a worryingly low place, there's no way personally I'm selling right now, because it'd be a foolish thing to do. We haven't received any specific bad news of late, but we haven't received anything good, neither, so of course the SP will 'wander'.
I do think, though, that with the passage of time, S&S could do worse than to issue a sort of 'roundup status report' indicating exactly what's happening with the entire portfolio.
You see that thing recently where Kay Burley 'interviewed' an empty seat? Well those two brrmedia 'interviews' recently issued by RBD were the same, but the other way round. There was no interviewer, and anyone can just talk to a camera.
Not good enough.
I ran out of space, earlier, but I'd like to expand a bit more on my interpretation. (This is tech stuff only). I wrote:
" Quite probably N2 'lift' continued while reeling CT in uphole. But once at surface, natural flow didn't occur. Small amounts of fluid may have been recovered, but nothing which constitutes a valid 'sample'."
OK, we've got CT at surface, maybe a little gas flare. So after waiting an unspecified amount of time for the well to 'come in' (which it doesn't), we then run CT back in the hole. Maybe do this a few times, to re-inject N2 and get things to flow. At a certain point the fluid level is reached. The technical word for this is 'tagging'. It's a word used in that 'community report'. Tagging the static fluid level is observed on the weight indicator gauge in the CT control cabin, possibly THE most important instrument there. And of course the depth-indicator tells you where, exactly, you've tagged.
Unfortunately, TS didn't mention the depth. It's unspecified.
This initial 'EWT' was performed 'rigless'. The rig was rigged-down and moved out, and the CT moved in. Standard procedure in the circumstances, or at least one 'standard variant'. The most economical, because why pay a rig dayrate when it's just going to be essentially standing by over the well, acting as nothing other than a glorified crane? Far cheaper to get an actual mobile crane to suspend the CT injector.
If the rig HAD been kept in place (now entering an imaginary scenario), CT could have been rigged-down, likewise the Xmas tree, BOP's rigged-up, the completion pulled, and an ESP completion run, once an ESP had been sourced. Rig down BOP's install tree, re-start the test using the pump.
But that's 'big boy' stuff. Expensive. And unbudgeted-for by Rathlin, who aren't exactly Exxon. So no blame that that's not what happened.
It ain't the end of the world, by any means. But first we appeared to be being told that EWT would be 'waiting on' a storage tank, more recent explanations mention an ESP, and now S & S aren't talking EWT at all, but instead drilling on WNB. Which is puzzling, to say the least.
Btw, it'd be really good if someone living in the area could go see if the WNB pad looks like it might be ready to go. The other day I mentioned those 'Drill or drop' freaks' article about the construction having been stalled. What I failed to notice was thet it was dated Nov 2018, not this year! Mea culpa, I hang my head in shame.
You also have to add to the mix why Rathlin shareholders have decided not to go ahead with the share swop with RBD!
I can only conclude they think more money is to be had by staying put, especially now Rathlin has funding.
Unfortunately, we are all trying to cobble together an opinion on the current state of play at WN from the information released so far.
I do not have the oil tech knowledge of some on here, but my gut instinct still is to follow the money.
I am sure S&S pay for the services of the best professional O&G
analysts before throwing the kitchen sink at a project.
"I don't think that adoubleuk is disputing the fact that oil will flow at WN, but simply that we have no hard data still to quantify the size of the discovery yet."
No, I am certainly not stating that WN can't be persuaded to flow. Although my belief is that flowrates per well may be low. I posted the same many weeks ago, but that suspicion back then was based on nothing more than gut-feeling. Now, it includes the sparse further information we now appear to have.
But as regards the 'size of the discovery', PDMSP has pointed you to the relevent part of the RNS, which is based on Rathlin's 'Operator data' (ie it's not a 3rd-party CPR) and interpretation.
I am not disputing anything published in the RNS. Simply pointing out that two particular words are absent from it. 'Permeability', and 'flow'.
" Point me to the paragraph in the RNS where we have been told it didn’t flow."
I can't, for the simple reason that the RNS makes no mention of the brief EWT attempt whatsoever. Which I feel is significant in itself.
Instead, I gleaned that implied knowledge from those 'Community meeting notes' that you yourself posted here, and for which I thanked you. Unfortunately though, it's those very same notes which triggered the 'cautious' line of thinking I'm now following. Here are the two relevent paragraphs.
"He (TS) said that this underlines the challenges with exploration work and the discovery of the unknown – this positive outcome hadn’t been anticipated. TS said that this meant, initially, that the testing team were unable to lift all of the liquids in the well to surface in an effective manner. He said, in light of this, the team performed an N2 lift which involved the injection of nitrogen into the wellbore to try and lift all fluids to the surface.
He explained that this was permitted by the Environment Agency and is a tried and tested method of lifting liquids to surface as part of oil and gas field testing and production. He said that it is a safe system of operation. TS explained that wellbore fluids were recovered at the surface with associated gas but there was not enough energy in the reservoir to recover any reservoir fluids to surface, but that fluids were tagged someway up the wellbore."
It's the final phrase which is rather telling, even if it appears to contradict itself. But I can see in my (technical) mind's eye what occurred, even if those notes were maybe written by a non-oilfield person, maybe paraphrasing TS's actual words. Why and how can I make such an interpretation? Simple. Because I've seen the same thing actually happen, live, and in the field.
Yes, with CT (coiled tubing) in the hole and injecting nitrogen, gas (including the nitrogen, of course) may be seen at surface and flared. In fact, we saw a photo of the rather feeble flare, but have no proof that the picture actually came from WN. Quite probably N2 'lift' continued while reeling CT in uphole. But once at surface, natural flow didn't occur. Small amounts of fluid may have been recovered, but nothing which constitutes a valid 'sample'.
Oil certainly didn't flow and get burned, because that would nave been a large, smokey flame, and the tree-huggers would have reported it pdq.
I'm sorry, but it's you who opened Pandora's box by posting those 'community notes', not me. But it was on reading them that I suspected that we're not getting the full story.
Really? Just an RNS saying minimum of 146 Million barrels of oil in place.
From the RNS of 11/11/19, less than a week ago...
“In the United Kingdom, the Zechstein reservoirs of the Southern Permian Basin have been explored and produced largely in the offshore Southern North Sea, with limited exploration in the immediately neighbouring onshore. They have, by contrast, been extensively and successfully explored and produced in the Netherlands, Germany and Poland, providing multiple analogues to West Newton.”
o Liquids: 146.4 million barrels ("mmbbl") of oil initially in-place ("OIIP");
o Gas: 211.5 billion cubic feet ("bcf") of gas initially in-place ("GIIP")
I don't think that adoubleuk is disputing the fact that oil will flow at WN, but simply that we have no hard data still to quantify the size of the discovery yet.
You’re missing the point ADUK. I think recent events points to the fact that it has flowed. You keep banging on claiming that it hasn’t flowed. Point me to the paragraph in the RNS where we have been told it didn’t flow.
"The information we have pointing to a world class discovery at West Newton is in the RNS with volumetrics. "
I beg to differ with you on that statement. Purely on a technical basis, and I think you have some knowledge of such technicalities.
I also beg to differ with the idea that people don't invest 16 million into a possibly dead-end project. W.Newton is obviously not a 'dry hole', but it hasn't flowed oil yet, and the 'revised' EWT obviously isn't progressing on the ground yet, otherwise we'd have got wind of it from the unwashed tree-huggers.
Let's face it, the Bowland Shale rivals anything to be found in the USA Permian, and Cuadrilla, Igas, and others have poured tens of millions into it, via their shareholders. And what's happened? End of the line, due to politics, nimbys, and everything else.
W.Newton is 'conventional', so no fracking' (maybe), so why not go ahead as previously announced? EWT.
Plus as others have pointed out, Cali seems to be off the radar for now, and Romania doesn't appear to be progressing, neither. And the SP is not good.
It's not so much a question of impatience, more one of feeling frustrated that the company seems to be loosing momentum.
The information we have pointing to a world class discovery at West Newton is in the RNS with volumetrics.
Anything said at a community liaison meeting by Rathlin representatives has a purpose and an agenda. That agenda being to keep things tranquil and calm in the community. Rathlin are not a public listed limited company and so they can tell as many porkie pies as they like. None of it adds up because it’s full of porkies. Nobody chucks £16,000,000 into a tight oil formation that won’t flow.
Why would anyone invest 16m on your post
"There is a world class discovery of epic proportions at West Newton."
I'm afraid you have no justification yet for saying such a thing. An oilfield which will not flow naturally is hard to describe as 'world class', no matter what its volumetric extent may be. We don't yet know the oil's 'quality' (API rating), nor how permeable the formation is, ie ability to allow flow, and which would be empirically established through an EWT. We've been told the Kirkham is an oil formation with a gas cap. Is the gas cap the pressure 'drive mechanism' (obviously not high pressure) ? If so, the gas won't be sold at market, in fact any gas released by produced oil will probably have to be reinjected.
" I’ve chucked my buttons in with the 24,000,000 others recently added and that’s where my buttons are staying. Moaning on here so that Bert from Barnsley takes a few buttons out of the pot is not going to make one bit of difference."
I'm personally rather responsible for having started this particular thread. And I didn't do so with the intention of trying to influence anybody in regard to their investment strategy. Instead, to bring up some technical questions to which I think we shareholders deserve some answers, or at least answers for which the data may already be available. The reason I raise such questions here on a public BB is that I live in a place where I nobody else to talk about these things with, and I think the purpose of this BB is for such discussion anyway. Plus I'd probably be wasting my time emailing any of the companies concerned with such questions, because I might very well not receive a reply.