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.
Baits
Rathlin community meeting
Cant find the 1000ft but it was written somewhere.
It says, not enough energy in the reservoir to recover reservoir fluids to the surface, that they were tagged someway up the well bore.
Also goes on to say they used Nitrogen to try and lift the fluids.
https://www.share-talk.com/west-newton-community-liaison-committee-rathlin-energy-uk-limited/
Pboo which RNS said it pushed it 1000 ft, and they used loads of nitrogen, can you point me in the right direction please I can not seem find it.
Baits
Only time will tell.
Heid
Yes at Broadford Bridge but not at Horse Hill
Pboo I think you think I do not want UKOG to do well well think again I do.But I think you do not want me or any other shareholder in here to do well I think I am right on that one.I wish you would think again about UJO ,I think at this time in there new plan they have worked things out on how to flow the oil,what do you think.
Two 'thinks' and 'tanker loads of Nitrogen'
I seem to recall tanker loads of Nitrogen were used by Ukog ?
Don't bother replying.
Baits
They had all the equipment required to flow oil other than a pump.
I think they thought it would free flow due to the gas but it would only lift the oil column I think it said 1000ft in the RNS.
Not enough down hole pressure. They used tanker loads of Nitrogen to try and get it flowing but that did not work.
It's gonna be what it's gonne be. Personally it's all good.
PDMS your .12 ot lower entry point is looking less likely & from the way you have conducted yourself recently i HOPE THE SP SHOOTS UP & YOU MISS OUT.
Of course they are going to flow the f-kin Oil,that is why they needed to amend their plans for Oil extraction and also the Gas.The first plan was to flow Gas only because that is all they thought was there just Gas.They would not need this new equipment if it was just the Gas they where going to flow would they, they already had it on site.
What a pathetic thing to say Tymers.
To.keep investers interested
Really don't care for your input PDMSPiper.
It is Rathlin I put my trust in and the RNSs.
They can re perf where they want to if required.
What I’m saying is based on 2 facts:
1.) They stayed in the RNS that all recovered well fluids will be passed through the incinerators.
2.) The incinerators are incapable of burning liquids. They are for cleaning gaseous emissions only.
So, if they flow oil it won’t be going through the incinerators which will contradict their statement in the RNS. Currently the RNS implies that they will not be flowing oil.
Some recent statements here seem to imply that we know exactly the interval that was perforated for the original test. I don't think we really know this, so maybe the liquids interval or maybe the overlying gas interval was perforated, or maybe it was across both zones! And we don't know whether exactly the same interval will be tested in the next stage of the EWT, or maybe some interval will be added lower down to see more of the liquid interval. Does this make sense?
Check the wording of the RNS. It says: “All recovered well fluids will be passed first through the test unit and then through the incinerators....”
Seeing as the incinerators are incapable of burning oil, that tells me that the “well fluid” is gas, possibly with oil in suspension that they have to burn off before emission to atmosphere. That’s what they’ve had to redesign for “presence of oil”. They had to stop last time because the gas flair was too dirty and they didn’t have a permit to flare oil. The incinerators are filters which operate at 800c+ to clean the emissions.
The flow test has been redesigned to clean it up so it remains within the environmental consents. It hasn’t been redesigned as an oil flow test IMO.
Why do incinerators for gas mean they cannot also have facilities on-site for oil? Bit of a non-sequitur. Presumably the site design allows them to test both, since they've indicated this verbosely on multiple occasions. They might well not produce oil from this site in perpetuity, but there is no reason to suppose they won't flow test it as planned. That flow data can be extrapolated to other drills on the site.
It is most certainly not true that they can 'say whatever they want to' in interviews. As board members, there are numerous FCA incumbencies upon their conduct and public statements, regardless of the RNS channel.
Isdeer; Spoiler: They can’t put liquids through those incinerators. They are for burning off organic impurities in gaseous emissions. They aren’t oil burners or flares. They are not physically capable of performing the function of an oil flare.
I tell you what I think currently: I think they’ll just do a gas flow test from WNA2, using the incinerators to clean the emissions of oil particles in suspension which are what caused the problem last time IMO. They will then drill WNB and flow and test oil from B where they are more likely to get a permit to flare oil as its further away from habitation.
They have never said in an RNS that they intend to flow oil. They only refer to “well fluids”, which encompasses everything. As for press releases and interviews, they can say what they want to in those as they aren’t regulated. Furthermore, I don’t think we’ll get any solid flow data from this WNA2 data either. They’ll want to keep it all low key until after WNB is drilled and tested. All only my opinion. We’ll have to wait and see.
Redesigned, maybe for both oil and gas, isn’t that the other option to flow both.
All of the press work from UJO and RBD has discussed flowing oil. I doubt they're deliberately misleading investors, unless they really hanker after a prison sentence.
There is one particular very telling paragraph in the RNS where they confirmed intention to recommence operations at WNA2. As soon as I read it, if cast a massive doubt over plans to flow oil. In fact if they do exactly what they say they will do in that RNS then flowing oil will be physically impossible. On the other hand they have said they need a pump and were waiting for a permit for a pump. No need for a pump if they don’t intend to flow oil. The 2 statements are directly contradictory so we’ll just have to wait and see.
In order to abandon plans to flow oil from WNA2 they would have had to have made plans to flow oil from that location in the first place.
In my opinion the flow test program has been redesigned. I accept, as we are told that the flow test program has been redesigned to deal with the unexpected presence of oil. There is a popular misconception that this therefore means that the newly redesigned flow test will be an oil flow test. It doesn’t. It means what they say: The flow test had to be redesigned to deal with the presence of oil. In my opinion, that is what the incinerators (regenerative thermal oxidizers) are there for. But what do I know, I’ve only designed and supervised installation of this stuff all over the world for the last few decades. You might know better than me.
PDMSP
That's 110% volume bunds need to be
They could however bring in large mobile bunded Tanks.
Its all conjecture lets see hey
Viva UJO
Where's Ginge?
Ah-ha, so there is your actual implication spelled out. You think they've abandoned plans to raise oil.
I think that's enormously unlikely and see no supporting evidence for the claim outside of 'why is the site not being prepped yet'. It fails Occum's Razor, for starters.