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.
"Mirasol Where do you get your figures from? It would mean Perenco are spending about £7m a month on re-injection which is about 30% what they get in receipts."
Its hard to get any hard numbers - for obvious reasons people don't talk much about costs of something that makes them no money. The numbers I quoted are from small onshore oilers - such as IGAS, EDR, Midmar, Star etc over the years
Wytch Farm is a totally different game as we're all aware
Yes Tony , it really would be helpful if we knew the exact disposal cost , I didn’t get to read the EA comments yet but will have a look.
I get that , just like Lidsey would make the company self sufficient after they drilled the Kimmeridge a couple of years ago then abandoned it. Wasn’t it the same team who originally drilled HH ? Tidswell and Lenigas aren’t exactly a reliable source of the truth.
"Angus quoted $49 a barrel to treat waste water in their re-injection application for Brockham"
No -one has any idea where they got that number from - but ANGS aren't very accurate on anything - as their "hair salon" contact form this week shows
Notinmyname:
Angus were producing waste water that only 1 place up North would accept .. I don’t know what the content of that was but I believe it had to be incinerated.
HH produced water goes to Avonmouth. The quantity of produced water is not one of water to one of oil...
I agree it is a cost but you exaggerated the case wildly...
UKOGs consultation period has ended. I believe the EA do not put a matter to consultation until the EA are happy, then they give the public a chance to scrutinize the docs to spot any oversight.
I did read a number of the responses and some of them were ..... ..... very misguided...
Thinking the EA and the council were the same thing....
Always cheaper to wash a car yourself than get someone to do it for you. Disposal costs off site are exorbitant compared to on site.
There’s a bit of a difference between re injection and water disposal...
Angus quoted $49 a barrel to treat waste water in their re-injection application for Brockham, I had previously heard of around $30 in the USA. If that’s anywhere near the right cost then HH is only just breaking even.
Mirasol
Where do you get your figures from? It would mean Perenco are spending about £7m a month on re-injection which is about 30% what they get in receipts.
"For all we know they will "manage" the production/re-injection for best fiscal returns. After all we don't know what the costs will be for re-injection yet and possibly never will."
They need to produce more to cover their total costs - around 200 bopd would be OK but there is absolutely no evidence they can achieve that at HH. Water disposal will eat them alive unless they can re-inject (costs are roughly £ 1 a bbl for injection compared to over £ 10 a barrel to truck and treat water). Reservoir performance from the OGA figures is quite well behaved and falls on a typical decline curve. Water production looks like a straight line slowly increasing.
Most other small onshore oilers seem to be able to produce down to 60 bopd with say a 30% water cut and still wash their faces. UKOG have higher costs (tho not as high as IGAS).
I'd say any spare cash they have or can get from a new dilution would far better be spent on Turkey
"they were not your posts"
Adrian - I put the formula in the post - you go and show me where someone else has published the same formula
And all you do is shovel abuse at people.
Mirabelle, they were not your posts.....you just cut and.paste .....stick to wallpapering......and don't forget to match the patterns.....as a world famous boxer( who was too good to mention in the same sentance as you) once said "what's my name.....WHAT'S MY NAME" ........you can't even get my name right........send me your address and I'll send you a clock with a broken mainspring......you've got a better chance of winding that up......and it will keep you entertained for many hours ..bye Mirabelle
Oops, sorry, make that UKOG Board! I can’t imagine why I confuse them..
Primula: I’m sure the Angus Board will be much gratified by this ringing endorsement. “No more corrupt than other firms on AIM”. Excellent. Box ticked, then. Carry on as you were, chaps, what”?
Mirasol
For all we know they will "manage" the production/re-injection for best fiscal returns. After all we don't know what the costs will be for re-injection yet and possibly never will.
" where are your detailed technical informative posts?."
You obviously missed - or didn't understand - the ones each month on decline curve analysis showing that they'll be producing 50% water cut at HH by August/Sept then Adrian and that production will level off at around 60-70 bopd
UKOG is no more corrupt than other firms on AIM nor other more prestigious market offerings. So long as investors keep this in mind, no more need be said because it will not change.
Penguins: I think you’re discussing investment and Ocelot is discussing gambling. To him and many others in the AIM. it’s merely an alternative to the bookie’s shop. A share can easily go from 0.8p to 11p in days or weeks on AIM with no fundamental justification - there’s no control or oversight on the lies that are told and the obfuscations that are offered. That doesn't make it a good investment. It makes it a betting slip. Or a game of pass the bomb. As with the horses, the bookies are the people who make the money. Some punters make money on the way but they're merely the more ready to be fleeced next time. I suppose that, assuming everyone knows this is how it works, it's a bit of fun and you never know, you might hit on something early that takes off. Do most people understand this, or are they under the impression they’re participating in a stock exchange? I think there’s an argument that the FCA should pass responsibility for the regulation/oversight of AIM to the Gambling Commission.
Penguins,
I'm not claiming any kind of infallibility for myself, the market doesn't really allow that kind of self-indulgent thinking (not for very long anyway!).
But the fact is that the share price went from 0.80p to 11p and, then, took about 2 1/2 years to break below 0.80p while you had been negative at 0.80p.
As far as market participants are concerned, it doesn't matter whether the share rose on a "false promise" or not, the fact is it DID rise very impressively and there was money to be made if you were long and money to be lost if you were short.
seadoc: ours was thin and wizened but possessed that natural authority which almost no teachers possess. Even the unruly element were in awe of him. Where does that come from?
Ocelot,
It took 3 months to go from 0.8p to 11p - based on effectively a false promise ....... and anybody who has been positive for those 2 1/2 years is what?
Qwerty59: what’s placerat?
In 2017, it moved up from 0.80p to 11p at the peak, ie it multiplied by 13.75 times.
Its recent low was 0.105p. A similar movement today would take the price up to 1.45p.
Is that possible in the present context? We don't know, but the precedent is there.
That sounds as if you were negative about UKOG as it climbed from 0.80p to 11p.'
Yes I was and it would be quite a put down if it wasn't for the fact that after the rise to 11p (for moments) it dropped eventually to just over 0.1p and is still below 0.8p.
-------
It is still quite a put-down, Penguins.
You were negative on UKOG when it was at 0.80p in mid-2017.
It wasn't until early 2020, about 2 1/2 years later, that it fell below 0.80p.
Penguins - I am a follower of what you post - it’s an accurate analysis of what is reality, unfortunately, you seem to be in battle with an opposing opinion, that to me is just pure speculation and they are not aligned with long term reality of what UKOG history has proven to date