The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen 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.
But the Trolls have been correct all the way.
PS I am not a troll
PCS
you do like your little lists, so do I like them:-
1. I did scan read the whitepaper (- scan, where's your highly positive take, with extracts)
2. The trolls immediately jumped on the negativity bandwagon (- I'm not a troll but in case you are inferring I am one - no I took the main findings relevant to UKOG and copy and pasted them - and added a comment - do you deny those extracts were in the paper?)
3. The trolls have zero inside knowledge on what data UKOG already have available to them ( - no, nor do you but if they want to run a PLT that's an indication they don't have all the facts, then the clean up was halted before proper flow data was obtained, and UKOG keep telling us they need to run the ewt to 'understand' the reservoir
4. The trolls have zero information concerning length of coiled tubing that is onsite. Speculative punt on it not being long enough is a massive deramp. (- No the tubing on the back of that truck was not coiled tubing - my comment about it not being 3,500 ft long was just reinforcing the point)
5. The trolls are not subject matter experts, Google addicts and trying to push results from the Information Super Highway does not count as Subject Matter Expert fact! (- I may not be an expert - but nor are you, at least I read and explain my conclusions)
6. Backwardsman still thinks 3 * 220 = 300 - that's up to BWM to answer, or not.
At some point a coiled tubing unit or workover rig will appear, but until either one or the other is on sit (maybe today - but not the truck FOTH claimed was the coiled tubing unit) I am sceptical the 'fix', rather than preparation for it, is in progress - and I see running the PLT tool, which according to UKOG is required to decide what to do, as the final preparation.
As for 3500bopd, if I remember correctly that is a figure based on the maximum (note 'maximum') number of tankers (16) a day (6 days a week) that might leave the site during the first 3 months. That's not to say they wouldn't reach that number if all 6 horizontals were in place and performing as expected, but a maximum isn't the same as an expected volume. Sometimes it's better not to expect the maximum when O&G projects are being considered.
They also produced an Environmental Impact Assessment in case they exceeded 500 tonnes per day ('could briefly') - but again it wasn't a certainty - 'Based on information acquired to date, once operational the Site could briefly produce in excess of 500 tonnes of petroleum per day for commercial purposes, the threshold at which the proposal becomes a “Schedule 1 development”10 which means it is “Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development”11 and must be supported by an Environmental Statement (ES).
PCS
I think the eyes would have shown pictures of it by now. Don't you?
PCS
Have you seen a coiled tubing unit on site? You can't miss them. Some bigger than others.
https://twitter.com/UKOGlistedonAIM/status/907855246440976386/photo/1
https://twitter.com/angusenergyplc/status/1044152875394486273/photo/1
Lame response from PCS. Then again, this is the poster who not so long ago was talking about 3500 barrels of oil p/d. Using his lingo, he has zero crediblity
"The Famous Five do complex Water Ingress fixes (without any subject matter expertise or inside technical data.)
ZERO credibility."
he WAS quoting from the technical paper Peter - just because you didn't read it all the way through there is no need to get abusive....................
TH2 - it will take a minimum of 2 weeks to fix after the arrival of the kit - see my post last week.
So far we haven't seen a workover rig nor a CT unit. The PLT logging tool may not be obvious but you can't run it without the other gear. So stop ramping and sit patiently............
it is however possible they are on dual flow from HH1 - which would mean they might be covering their costs at long last
Penguins.
We will see which method was used after fix..... Interesting though.
Looking forward to the company report.... BIG FIX DONE!
That's ignight interest in buying up shares BIG time!
Today looks like the key day for getting it done.... report soon.
Looking a Twitter we can expect eyes reporting several BKP tankers today with possible mix of Oil tankers and well clean up tankers (mix fluids and oil).
Great time to be invested riding the sentiment wave back up to fair value...... 10p plus in no time chaps!
PCS,
If you've written a whitepaper on water fix, then share the link.
No, but I have just read the paper about chemical 'fixes' that oilybloke provided a link to the abstract - and taken a few relevant extracts from it.
Suggest you read it:
https://www.mdpi.com/2305-7084/3/2/51/htm
As for this:- Otherwise, shut up. ZERO credibility trying to talk down a whitepaper that's been through peer review by experts in the field.
I'm quoting the paper.
PCS - calm down - Penguins and I aren't saying chemical methods don't work - just that they don't appear to be useful here.
The Company have never said they were going to use Chemical methods - it all stems from someone on here month ago trying to find a "quick fix" solution on Google.
A mechanical shut-off is by far the most common method used for this problem - and it generally works. As the published article points out a chemical fix is NOT a quick solution - a mechanical/cement job should fix the issue in a couple of weeks work once they know exactly where they need to place it.
TBH I think the rig crew will be much happier dealing with a well known technique rather than something they've never used before
I'd expect a mechanical shutoff backed with a liberal dose of cement - it's relatively simple, very well known, used for well over 100 years, the kit is available (not the PLT tool but that's a different beast) and quite quick once they know where they want to shut-off
Well, let's hope it's successful. The only other last-ditch, alternative is to start feeding the share price on "Wagg food for dogs", seems to work wonders on other under-performing canines.
There is also the question of EA & OGA approval - they both get a bit twitchy about pumping new chemicals into the ground.................
Oilybloke,
did you read the article. The 2 methods cited, Gel and Polymer, don't really seem applicable to HH-2z - we shall see.
To start with this was early on in the article:-
'The results of chemical solutions can be achieved in a couple of months to years, depending on the nature of the reservoir and the properties of the injected chemicals.'
So not instant.
'Gel treatments can completely seal off layers; therefore, they are considered aggressive and risky conformance control operation'
Gel sounds like it could totally mess up the reservoir.
'Another common technique for water shutoff operations is the usage of the polymer flooding method to increase the viscosity of the water. This technique is applied to increase the viscosity of the drive fluid (water) which helps in mobilizing and displacing the oil in the reservoir matrix rock. '
So 'Polymer' in the example in the article is used as an additive to water used in water flooding (injection) from the injector well.
It also seems a high level of understanding of the reservoir and it's production mechanism is required:-
'The most important part in any water shutoff operation is the accurate diagnosis of the problem. It is essential to know the water entry point, the heterogeneity of the reservoir rocks, dominant production mechanisms, and the schematics of the wellbore'
and they don't have the data to understand the reservoir along the horizontal either.
Backwoodsman
Yes I`m very optimistic and happy with SS and the course of UKOG as a company, and subsequently its Mcap.
I also understand traders frustrations for not making a quick shilling here, heyho that's AIM and all that comes with it, even the CLN financing.
Cheers
They have around 500,000,000 left to sell(that's if they want too). The right news and we will be trading close to a billion shares a day ,so half that would be gone in no time(providing they want to sell them all.)
"So assuming they are using chemical fix to quickly address the water ingress."
AFAIK the compnay has never mentioned a chemical fix and I don't think was has ever been aplied onshore UK. The whole story comes from Google Warriors in here.
"news on the gate re coiled tubing" - I'll believe that when FTH posts a picture of the CT tower in place - look back at BBr - its about 4 storys high and no-one has shown a picture of the big coiled tubing drum (several m in diameter, going on site yet...............
It seems fairly routine whatever method is used. The solution just needs to be done properly .
https://www.mdpi.com/461730
Thanks to Dsfat over the weekend..
oily, thanks for posting, much appreciated. ATB
Smell the Oil..... More tanker loads of it leaving the site today!
Backwoodsman...
Look beyond the charts and smell the coffee.
Here it is.......
The main advantage that chemical water shutoff operations have over mechanical operations is that they solve the problem of the unwanted water production instead of hiding it under or behind a plug, packer, or tubing patch. Injected chemicals can reach water features in the reservoir and reduce the permeability, resulting in closing them entirely. They also have the freedom of moving between the layers and features which helps in reaching to far extents and completely closing them. Another use of chemical injection is to increase the viscosity of the injected fluid which leads to a better sweeping efficiency and eventually reduces the production of unwanted water. The success of chemical injection operations depends on the knowledge level of the reservoir and its characterizations, chemical properties, and accurate placement of the injected chemicals. For example, the effectiveness of water shutoff agents depends highly on the properties of the reservoir and has to be compatible with the reservoir temperature and water salinity in order to achieve an effective water shutoff [19]. In this section, common chemical solutions are discussed in detail, along with examples of the execution of the operations.
After reading a link a couple of days ago from another poster regarding fixing water problems of which there must be 7 or 8 methods depending on the results from analysing the data. The chemical fix was in my view the most permanent, apart from plugging the toe end.
I`m very confident in the routine fix now if the chemical fix is happening.