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.
Penguins
The wording has changed to significantly higher for legal reasons.
By saying 2 - 3 times 362 the original RNSs were putting a figure on an uncertain amount, which isnt allowed. Significantly higher means we expect it to be a lot higher but we arent putting a figure on to an uncertain amount because were not allowed to.
Ibug I'm not sure what your point is Vs my earlier post. Sorry.
Even 8 a day would be nice!
I'm sorry Pboo, I left that out because it isn't what has been stated in 4 recent RNS.
........the wording since 30 September is 'significantly more than 362bopd'.
If it was still 2 to 3 times etc - why change the wording? I have no idea what the rate will be but noting changes in wording sometimes identifies changes in direction, timing etc that UKOG has only hinted.
and prudent flowing - good idea, but the 362bopd was supposedly a sustainable rate - what would be imprudent about flowing at a rate that is supposedly sustainable - what will be the sustainable rate of the horizontal - what will be the prudent rate? I noticed in the November 2018 presentation 720 to 1000bopd was stated to be an initial rate - but that was a long time ago...….
So
Oakleak
You seem to forget UKOG applied and successfully went through the scoping process as required by Regulation 15 of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (Statutory Instrument 2017 No.571) in October 2018.
Bad Penguin, someone build her a little ramp so she can climb out of her hole.
More wells, more oil, more profit, more UKOG = ££££££ for shareholders..... very exciting times :-)
What you left out was
the average pumped rate from HH-1 continues to be maintained below the previously reported 362 bopd calculated sustainable rate. As previously stated, based upon well-established reservoir engineering metrics, it is expected that HH-2 has the potential to achieve a rate of 2-3 or more times the HH-1's vertical rate of 362 bopd.
UKOG are rightly so being Prudent on how they flow HH1 and have said that many times. It is well know that you don't just fully open the taps as that can be detrimental to the well.
All the signs so far is that the Portland is going to flow many times the current stated rate and from more than one well.
Ps. I'm not in any group
Jttalv, the tanker numbers are indicative but I'm sure that ukog cannot rip the backside out of it. They may or may not be too far off the mark but I don't expect 16 tankers for 4 months and then a step down to 12 overnight. Don't loose the fact that 16 tankers equates to 500 tonnes, over which additional environmental red tape is required. Coincidence?
Nice one Penguins.
The document HHDL-HH-PSandER-V1: APPENDIX G: TRANSPORT is a very interesting read!.
Page 9 - The tanker movements predictions are massive. 16 a day!
https://planning.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application
Application number 16/02556/CON
Pboo,
What (except to show that maybe the HH-1 vertical is possibly connected to all the oil in the sweet spot in the HH fault block) has that to do with what I quoted from the 17 May 2019 RNS.
Here's the paragraph in full:-
'For prudent Portland reservoir management purposes and to ensure there is no detriment to the expected high performance of the HH-2 Portland horizontal well, the average pumped rate from HH-1 continues to be maintained below the previously reported 362 bopd calculated sustainable rate.'
So UKOG said detriment - I said compromised - but I previously quoted verbatim.
I thought your little group claimed to be well researched.
Thanks to trolls and YA for keeping the price down.
Just gave me the opportunity to pick up another 132k shares :-)
By the way trades are 1.12p are currently buys!
So much happening on site and all positive. Two production wells on stream in the next four/five weeks and expecting total volume around 2000 barrels per day!
Then the push though the 2020 drilling campaign with the self financing profits will transform UKOG into a mid cap and FTSE listing.
Simples.... the only question people will be asking down the pub in 12 months is were you in UKOG before it exploded and turned sussex into Dubai :-)
I think I'll move down there before property prices explode north too!
GLA
Hopefully there soon will be 16 tankers a day as per the planning application!
Penguins
Who said it would compromise the Horizontals performance????
What was said in an RNS was
"Prior to the Kimmeridge production switch, which was necessary for the safe drilling and coring of HH-2/2z through the Portland reservoir, total aggregate Portland production reached 29,568 bbl, with HH-1 continuing to produce dry Portland oil at a stable rate of over 220 bopd. Preliminary Company analysis of the final Portland pressure build-up test, indicates that the Portland connected oil volume accessed by HH-1 has significantly increased from 7-11 million bbl to 11-14 million bbl, a robustly commercial volume"
Yes the Potential had increased from 7-11 million to 11 to 14 million in HH1
Pboo,
If that's the case why were they concerned that the horizontal's performance would be compromised by production from HH-1
.....and the other Portland well is planned for the Collendean Farm fault block, which if the separating fault is as mapped should offset the sweet spot layer and thus not be in communication with the HH-1 or HH-2z well.
Penguins
Why is it unlikely????
HH1 portland is in a totaly different direction than the South East 1000 metres of HH2Z.
HH3 is also going to be a Portland producer and that will be going of at a totaly different direction
I'm afraid you are talking utter and total rubbish as per usual.
Pboo,
It's unlikely they will flow the Portland in the vertical when they are flowing the horizontal given that they will both be producing from overlapping connected oil in the same sweet spot interval. They were previously keeping the flow rate down partly to:- 'ensure there is no detriment to the expected high performance of the HH-2 Portland horizontal well' so it was recognised then that it would be drawing oil from the same 'pool'......and that was long before HH-2Z was going to be drilled.
If it is the esp then maybe is it just an early delivery for 2Z or maybe they are installing it in the Kimmeridge in HH-1?
Esp pump that could be used in HH1 to flow the Portland and Kimmeridge together.
https://twitter.com/WealdOilers/status/1186914836896202752?s=19