We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
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. 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.
Anyone familiar with the state of current capital markets for O&G and the ESG agenda, will realise that non of the publicly listed majors will touch an onshore development asset (especially if its got an oil component) in this climate. Quite simply the grief and hassle of dealing with the investor, media and community negativity is not worth the effort for what would be to them an irrelevant asset. If they want gas for the area then theres several orders on magnitude available to them a few miles away at Easington coming in from Norway and the UK gas basin. The small caps have neither the capital nor experience to do this if its of a scale they have been hoping for. That leaves the well capitalised private players who can more easily ignore the media and negative publicity. Ineos is one (although they've retreated a little from UK gas production after the fracking debacle and their offshore assets haven't been exactly stellar performers) the others are the trading houses such as Vitol, Glencore, Trafi etc... anyone whose dealt with these types before will know they don't throw money at stuff, but they can transact where the political focus and media is too negative for the others.
RNST, I didn't say what I thought about it. As it happens, I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference to us, as it will, in my opinion, be a major dealing with central government in developing the licence, as the council will be taken out of responsibility for decision making, and the JV partners will have sold.
Mr Investment I don't disagree.
Egdon themselves have stated that the squeeze is the principal remedy for the "skin" issue.
The re perf may or may not have increased the flow above the original test as I've previously mentioned.
But folks speculating that its cleaning up day by day is simply unfounded.
This well will not clean up to the numbers folks expect without the squeeze, I've recently posted why they don't want to RNS, for the very good reason that it will be viewed out of context in terms of the overall plan by shareholders.
Rubey,
My Mistake, he is a councillor and was only Chair of the Committee.. nevertheless .
He may be what you might consider a "tree hugger", but he's a not a Green Party, Liberal or Labour councillor, he's a Conservative councillor, a group not known for their tree hugging agenda. So do you still think EY declaring a climate emergency is a good thing or a bad thing?
Quote "The field is currently producing circa 19 barrels of oil per day (“bopd”) from one of two production wells (FA-3). The second producing well (FA-1) is currently shut-in awaiting a workover. The field also has a dedicated water disposal well to reinject produced water into the reservoir for pressure support (FA-2). The field has suffered from a lack of investment in recent years. Egdon plans to enhance the cash flows and profitability of the operation by increasing production initially to between 30 and 40 bopd via low cost well interventions. It is planned to workover both the currently producing FA-3 and the shut-in FA-1 wells during 2017 by installing new tubing, pumps and isolating water producing zones."
That is true also Rubey.
Heid
what you say "Anyone recalling Fiskerton will know that flow rates steadily increased each day"
You really must check your facts (although I agree its not something you let get in the way of a good old ramp".
Egdon said this on the acquisition Fiskerton in July 2017:
<
So the plan was to go from 19/day to 30-40/day.
The reality (from the OGA website): Since acquisition in July 2107 to mid November 20, total produced 20,000 bbls thats 16 bbls/day on average, highest achieved 26 bbls/day, lowest 9bbls/day. So not only is your "steady increase a load of guff", its perhaps highlighted not the best example of Egdons production planning and assessment prowess don't you think?
Did you not read the Carbon Intensity Study in Full ?
'in line with the UK government's focus on low-carbon efficient energy sources.'
And if we put the gas straight in to the grid we improve even more.
Get your facts right RNST. He isn't Chair of the Council, he's Chair of the climate review panel - big difference. You'd expect someone volunteering for that job to be a tree hugger.
Heid
If you think that East Yorkshire declaring a climate emergency is great news, then I think you've just lost the commercial plot.
This simply means that any further approvals need by these folks will simply become more wrapped up in the local political agenda, as the chair of the Council said..." the council wanted to go beyond the “symbolic act” of declaring a climate emergency." what do you actually think that means? ? perhaps making sure its a meat free sandwich luncheon at the next meeting whilst they waive through any development plans for WN , (the chair of the council became a vegetarian during the review). Local politics is rife with partisan agendas and playing to the local audience, just see how long it went on at Wressle, 5 years of intransigent local councillors, this decision will certainly not speed up any approvals process...
Lee on twitter :
#UJO #EDR I can confirm that Wressle-1 is still in the clean-up stage of operations and produced oil is being sent to the Phillips 66 Humber refinery. They will RNS once flow rates have stabilised.
Anyone recalling Fiskerton will know that flow rates steadily increased each day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tpvxsJAZPk
Brent 66.51 $$$$$$$$
Oil prices reach one-year high as global crude supplies shrink
Stephen Williams, co-CEO of Reabold, comments:
"This is a material development for West Newton, which suggests the field could be a low-carbon energy producer, in line with the UK government's focus on low-carbon efficient energy sources."
The study also highlighted that this number could be further reduced to just 3.5 gCO2eq./MJ by applying, inter alia, gas to grid technologies
GaffneyCline, world renowned, performed Carbon Intensity study on FDP for West Newton and rated it 'AA' , in June 2020, consistent with international energy agency's sustainable development scenario.
Clean project, minimum carbon omissions which is Ideal for attracting institutional investors.
This is great news for West Newton and a credit to David's forward thinking as East Yorkshire today declared a climate emergency.