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.
I would consider that this would also apply if it is continuing into third term ......
"While the initial term is associated with a work programme of exploration work that must be completed if the licence is to continue into a second term, the licensee has the right to start production during the initial term, if the licensee can move quickly enough, subject to normal regulatory controls."
https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/licensing-consents/onshore-licences/
PSC
You really are a toll imo.
The company quite clearly said "Cored & drilled KL section near identical to HH-1"
All I was doing was illustrating the differences in the core layers and what they would have found if they had carried on with the original plan.
You really must stop listening to FOTH. Only a few days ago he couldn't stop going on about the 2014 oil pipeline theft and the fact that the Alton to Purfleet pipeline runs past HH.
You really must rein yourself in with your predictions. Giving false hope to innocent PI's is very misleading. Your predictions for November are way off. The site is operating under the SCC Ref 2016 0189 planning application. The SCC Ref 2018 0152 planing approval will not kick in until the 5 conditions have been met. These include Highways & Access, Noise, Lighting, Contamination and Surface water management.
The production for HH-1 and HH-2Z will be limited by separate EWT permissions by the OGA until such time as they issue the third stage of the Production Licence. These will be known by the company as agreed with the OGA.
I suggest you look in the mirror before calling others troll. You just seem to try and start an argument with every post you make. It is very FOTH like.
I bet share profiligates are ******* themselves over their shorts.
Forget all the derampers - all you need to know is that its now 1.2p to buy and 1.15p to sell - it's going up - after news - despite death spiral taxation - that says everything
here he goes again
That a big conspiracy theory.
How do you think you could substantiate it.
Apart from the flow rates which seem minimal due to the fractures closing up on pressure draw down.
This has been put down to asidisation of the well which is a standard practice & was also done at HH where it has not had any adverse affects.
I believe UKOG have clearly stated that no further asidisation will be done within the Weald in any future drills.
I also understand that this process was used at Brockham.
*De-Risked not detailed* autocorrect rubbish
We know of course that BB Kimm was messed up by the acid wash ,which collapsed the substrate. That's not happening here as a) it's not the same substrate and b) no acid wash is being used.
Correct, a completely different play very much a more conventional play which in itself is a lot more detailed , the problem with BB wasn’t that the oil wasn’t there. Portland is as near damn it nailed on
Was BB messed up on purpose, so that SS could buy up more percentage, as he knows what's really down there.?
Ah, beat me to it, Ibug! :-)
Don't forget some of the BB cores had visible oil dripping from them too and look how that turned out. However I believe the Portland layer is sandstone (correct me if I'm wrong) so more akin to Wych Farm, where they have had steady production for decades and with the more stable geology than the Kimmeridge, are able to drill horizontals up to 10kms long.
https://twitter.com/UKOGlistedonAIM/status/883208411353055232/photo/1
UKOG
@UKOGlistedonAIM
#BB-1 #OIL Cored & drilled KL section near identical to HH-1. "Findings are highly significant,” says UKOG chairman http://goo.gl/3ohznr
7:17 AM · Jul 7, 2017·Twitter Web Client
As core samples go that looks to be a good one ????