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 and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
Hello steptoes , I have had backwoodsman on filter for ages ... he used to bash ukog and ujo . Must be playing some sort of short game of is a tree hugger.
Anyhow, good luck ukog, good luck ujo
I think that you underestimate the benefits of water production & the reinjection.
The reinjection of water should enhance the % of recoverable oil which is reported to have the possibility of up to 45% recoverable with water injection by independent auditors Xodus.
And it would thaw.. Might be useful against a terminator from the future though. ;-@
Because liquid nitrogen also freezes oil
They say that because there will be 3 producers, and water is unavoidable, at some point it will flow a cut of water. It's just economic planning as to when to switch from tanking versus reinjection.
Peter I don’t think the water ingress in the toe is likely to be a major issue. I’ve previously said that I expect it will be a routine fix.
What isn’t adding up is that the company say they will plug it BUT they will likely reinject water during the long term production phase. So, if the fracture at the tie is successfully plugged where is the water coming from that needs to be reinjected?
If you’re correct about only needing three tankers a week then I don’t think a water reinjection well would be necessary? Assuming the cost of drilling that well would be similar to drilling a producer then it wouldn’t be worth the expense. If a water reinjevtion well is going to reduce water disposal costs, as the company day it will, the. Water disposal costs would need to run into the millions long-term.
I’m beginning to think that the company aren’t really certain as yet how much water they have in the well and where it’s coming from, hence the uncertainty around the need for a reinjection well.
Backwoodsman worst case scenario....
The present worldwide daily water production from oil wells averages roughly 3 BWPD per barrel of oil, although some wells produce significantly higher amounts. . In a well producing oil with 80% water cut, the cost of handling water can double normal lifting costs. Yet, wells with water cuts in excess of 90% may still produce sufficient hydrocarbons to be economical (e.g., certain wells in the North Sea Shell Expro Brent fields and in the BP-Amoco Forties fields). Water control technology is intended to reduce the costs of producing water.“Bad” water is water produced into the wellbore that produces no oil or insufficient oil to pay for the cost of handling the water. So far we have not encountered bad water, It is not necessary, nor desirable, to completely shut off the coproduced water. The logic here is the distinction between “good” (necessary) and “bad” (excess) water. “Good” water is that water produced at a rate below the water/oil economic limit (i.e., the oil produced can pay for the water produced). “Good” water, then, is that water that cannot be shut off without reducing oil production...basically if water is managed correctly it can be an asset and we have anticipated a water re injection well sorry to disappoint backwoodsman, but you have this and more coming to us both in UJO.
Peter I am no ramper as my posting history will show, but I can’t abide the likes of backwoodsman trying to manipulate the RNS to suit his agenda and try to deramp UKOG for his own trading needs...He is just trying to make things look so bleak here that he think investors will move to ujo where he will trade and sell in to any good news there .
Let me post it again then....
Why do you think water ingress from an open natural fracture in the toe end is a major issue?
They may just plug the last 100 to 500 feet of the 2500 feet horizontal to eliminate that exposure to the open natural fracture.
At present there is no evidence of water ingress anywhere else in the horizontal.
So plug it and then there is no water issue. If the water does traverse into the oil play, then it'll provide pressure to help oil production levels. A small % cut of water, say 10% would only create something around 700 barrels of water a week. They can ship that off in 3 tankers a week. Whilst 90% oil cut of 1000 bopd will give them 5400 barrel per week, roughly 25 tankers a week.
So short term, no issue.
Longer term, get the reinjection well drilled to reduce water disposal costs. "
I do not envisage water in the short term.
An open fracture delivering water to the toe end, it'll be plugged. No more open fracture.
Short term, I see only dry oil which may deliver 10%. Short term to me is 6 months. If water does come, then a few tankers a week is not a problem.
Costs of water disposal depends on a couple of factors. But for me the biggest opportunity is a deal with Angus who need water for their planned reinstigation of Brockham Portland wells. It may be cost neutral. I think that's a reasonable deal for both parties.
Longer term. I expect a second horizontal into the Portland and an injector well. And I see those being drilled this year.
All in my opinion of course. If I were CEO or the CFO then it would be 100% focus on capital spend at HH. Get the site up and producing 2000+ bopd pronto.
Ninetails. Thanks for your list of steps. I assume SS and team will be aware of this, and since he mentioned "Routine Intervention" hopes that one of those steps will do the trick. After todays news, thanks again to the Eyes. this board seems to have calmed down. Lets give the man and team chance to get on and deliver for all our benefits.
QUESTION? If this turns out to be routine will we still need a rig?
I’ve been rereading your posts and the RNS’s with interest. I understand you’re saying we could have an intermediate stage where formation water is sent off-site by tanker for disposal.
How did you get your 10% water cut figure? What do you think costs if disposal are likely to be?
Rereading the last RNS I can’t reconcile the two paras below. They read as contradictory to me - one says that the “long-term production phase” will include a water reinjection well and one says that a water reinjection well will be part of phase two.
‘During the "long-term production" phase, which will follow after the EWT, formation water will likely be reinjected to maintain reservoir pressure and to minimise water disposal costs.’
‘A field development plan ("FDP") was also submitted to the Oil and Gas Authority, seeking consent for the field's planned first "long-term production" phase which will follow the conclusion of the EWT. This phase will consist of two producing wells, HH-1 and HH-2z. Subsequent phases, involving further infill production wells and a possible water reinjection well, are planned to be submitted as FDP addenda in the coming year once longer-term well behaviour is more comprehensively understood.’
So chemincals going in via coil tubing tomorrow ?
It'll be interesting to see how this unfolds through the week.
I do not post on technical issues that can be taken apart and twisted, but I work offshore although not in drilling, I am in contact with Schlumberger, Wellservices, Archer, Expro, Halliburton, Baker Hughes and weatherford , feel free to google them all, I have broached the subject of water ingress at the toe end of a horizontal well with slotted liners, they all said they would start with the simple procedure and it would be a process of elimination ie if a plug works (possible chemical) job done if not move on to the next procedure but basically each well has it’s own characteristics and know one knows until the procedure is underway (especially backwoodsman) to comment on such a procedure without all the relevant information, and even then is pure speculation.Until the first procedure has been implemented all the doom and gloom Swing trader Backwoodsman presents to this board is pure speculation on the deramping side.
always thought the unemployment figures are understated!
So many armchair oil and gas engineers and others on this board. Does industry know that this army of engineers, accountants and experts exist?
Missed opportunity by not following the original plan and drilling HH-2 down into the Kimmeridge imo. No doubt SS is kicking himself. Would have made an ideal injector below the lower Portland. Self inflicted wound or just par for the course!
Whilst we all appreciatte how elequently you posted I think I could describe the negative trolls in fewer words . Any negative on this bb is quite simply a spreadbet short a local protester or just some sad loner who likes a fight as such ignore they play no part and are irrelevant to what ukog are doing
What the RNS says....Whilst HH-2z continued to clean-up prior to the current shut-in, returning oil, completion and drilling fluids to surface, evidence of formation water ingress was also recorded. Consequently, an additional routine intervention is planned to shut-off the water source, What backwoodsman says, the RNS says, ....This means that, in addition to hitting a water source at the far end of the well, there is also an issue with the presence of SIGNIFICANT formation water... he just thought he would add the word significant in himself... Not to be trusted he is a swing trader, he had a deramp campaign before he bought into UJO and has been called out many times on the UJO board...
You've repeated yourself twice now and you're failing badly on the doom mongering. Just wait and see what happens when they bung the toe...still, keep spinning this lie as it keeps Suemay1 happy...
Long term reinjection. No need to inject any water if it's not being produced. Read my post. 10% cut of 1000 bopd is 3 tankers a week. 90% cut of Oil is 25 tankers.
Makes no sense to drill in the short term. Just tanker it to elsewhere. Brockham potentially.
Thanks for the update and ongoing works and ur opinion
Chris pea**** so what do you suggest as to why the wont 'furk it up'.
Maybe you could go on site and advise SS and the team exactly how it's done or what they need to do ??
The interesting part of the RND is this part;
‘ Consequently, an additional routine intervention is planned to shut-off the water source, currently interpreted to be from an open natural fracture in the "toe" (or far end) of the horizontal trajectory. During the "long-term production" phase, which will follow after the EWT, formation water will likely be reinjected to maintain reservoir pressure and to minimise water disposal costs.’
So, routine intervention, followed by EWT, followed by long term production.
We can’t get to the long term production phase without a water injection well and that involves quite a long timescale.
"They may just plug the last 100 to 500 feet of the 2500 feet horizontal to eliminate that exposure to the open natural fracture.
At present there is no evidence of water ingress anywhere else in the horizontal."
PCS is correct - that almost certainly what they are going to try. They said the end of he well was in a different pressure regime to the HH1 - so there is geological barrier that is causing the pressure differential. Position the plug correctly and they should be able to keep the water out for some time.................. May affect the upside reserve picture as obviously the field is not quite what they thought it was when they drilled the long horizontal - but that's not unexpected when you don't have 3D seismic
Backwoodsman...I see you are very concerned with the problems facing UKOG, that you have done much research, and managed to highlight and indeed exaggerate the problems to the upmost , I read your posts on the UJO board as I am invested there also, maybe you should be concerned how things are going to pan out over there before coming on here trying to make things sound worse than they are, at least UKOG have put oil to the refinery, UJO have many, many hurdles to cross before they get to that stage, and who knows what problems will be thrown up there, or indeed how much water will be encountered.And as for communication and updates it is radio silence, and sentiment at an all time low, the only people happy over there are the pump and dump traders waiting for some news to sell into, The Wressle permissions was fantastic news for UJO but the traders took the sting out of that and the same will happen on next news...Good luck with your trading.