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.
Your guess was it was crap from SF7 newly connected line that was causing the production fall off. I simply offered a different explanation which you seemed to take offence too!
ALL PEOPLE REALLY NEED TO UNDERSTAND HERE is they have 70-80 barg reservoir drive pressure to play with.
ANY pressure readings at surface are ALL influenced MOSTLY by liquids, apply industry standard solutions for the liquids to get to surface easier and more efficiently and you resolve the surface pressure issue, they go HAND IN HAND.
I think" GENUINE SHAREHOLDERS" will be saying "TALK TO THE HAND"paid posters.
Thank you for your informative posts, Bubblepoint.
""Your guess was it was crap from SF7 newly connected line that was causing the production fall off""
wg,
I have stated numerous times "in my industry knowledgeable OPINION".
Now, you say Guess, BUT if you care to bother to look at when the daily flow reduced, was totally in line with the removal of Well test pipe work and most importantly the temporary well test separator, which clearly indicates that the NOW sent total produced from B07T is affecting at the field plant separator etc, so YES I maintain that reasoning.
If it is more to do with total liquids being produced rather than the potential contamination from B07T within the condensates collected from all 3 wells in the plant separator, and they simply need to reduce liquids production by say 20%, then it could be they have reduced flow from A4, either way it still relates to the switch over and the effect it is having on the filed plant and separator system.
NEXT !!!
No need to get annoyed BP!!
All I’m saying is from my slightly more researched view, they are possibly 4 months ahead of the CPR. I come to this conclusion by studying all the information available, including that offered by you last Friday.
You seem to think the SF4 water cut isn’t important.
I disagree as I have studied the figures.
Again looking at the Wingas FDP, they could decide it’s not worth the expense to rectify.
Apparently yesterday you now think the compressor package isn’t any longer essential? (Just a bolt on addition if they need it) well we both know it’s essential. And as your post I highlighted says they are into all sorts of issues until that ££2.5 million package is installed in October…..(this is Angus so make that august 2025) The real question is why it’s no sitting on site as we speak ready to be switched on!!……it’s not like they haven’t known about it!
Ok apologies, in your OPINION, only as I have pointed out on several occasions, according to Singhies daily figures, the daily proportion figures started falling before it was connected. The devil is in the detail!
I LOVE it - we are ALL now industry experts thanks to BP and some WG.
OofyProsser, I am neither a paid stooge of Angus Energy nor do I work for a broker or a Nomad. It seems to me that these accusations are made with ever-growing regularity on all of the lse forums particularly on here where it seems that anyone who still has a positive view on Angus and its potential runs the gauntlet of being attacked by non-invested naysayers. I have never worked out why this is.
When Richard Herbert came on board he brought with him a wealth of experience including in technical and financing and with Tin Kaye he has a COO with a lot of experience in managing oilfields. They must both have known what they were getting into and therefore I do not believe that the situation is anywhere near as bleak as WG and his allies make out.
I think that it is very interesting that bubblepoint, the only person on this board who actually has oil and gas industry experience, has pointed out the issues with the reservoir are more inconvenient than insurmountable and yet WG tells us everything is ruined, based on nothing other than the CPR reports and his own mystical calculations.
I also think that it is facile to think that Angus are just sitting there waiting for financing problems to hit without doing anything about it. If we are all aware of these issues then I think that it is safe to say that the Angus board are too and are doing everything in their power to sort this out.
Investing is a game of risk. I believe that the board that we have now must be aware of the risks both at a financial and a reservoir level and I believe that they will find solutions to both as neither are insurmountable.
I find WGs amateur research that the reservoir pressure is going to fail completely unconvincing and I note that he caveats a lot of his posts by using the word possibly just before he goes into another spiel about how everything is doomed. Presumably this is so he can disassociate from his one posts at a later date.
Personally, I am going to ignore WG’s warnings. He has made it clear that he believes that the reservoir will fail by summer 2024, which I believe is his 4 months ahead of the CPR. I think that he is wrong. I am happy to put my faith in RH and his BP experience over WG and his crabby grandpa amateur research. Time will tell which of us is correct.
WG,
Booster compressor has been in the outfit references for well over 2 years, but it is something that "should" only be utilized once they have used commercially viable options on the actual wells FIRST.
Reason being that well production solutions and production string solutions have the potential to alleviate the the surface pressure issues "potentially" for a considerable time.
And the booster compressor ONLY enables the main compressors to function above threshold, it does nothing for the production of liquids or well condition, ONLY installing a booster compressor and doing nothing else will seriously impede the life production of the field.
As for A4 water production, I have discussed this in detail over the last couple of years, and the main reason for A4 contributing the vast majority of the produced water is that the well trajectory was poor, and dips down to near bottom of reservoir BEFORE changing direction while drilling and shifting upwards more towards mid reservoir, therefore the gas entering the well in the latter part of the well is met with BANKED condensates and possibly a SMALL amount of reservoir water which is being forced out of the well with the gas.
The latest water volume is not that big, around 18 bbl/day, hardly earth shatteringly high, and it is also fact that condensate creation also has water induced from that condensation effect, maybe not all but a good portion of the banked condensate also contains BANKED induced water too.
In part, the BANKED condensates and induced water is likely from ALL past and present wells, being that the density of both liquids means that a proportion of condensates and water generated in the near wellbore reservoir and in the well as it produces does not make it out to surface, and can simply fall out slowly to bottom of reservoir, only to be collected by any well that intersects that low lying area of the reservoir.
A4 potentially has options, they could for EXAMPLE, run a production tubing that extends further into the wellbore so the tubing end is past the low point and into the higher point in the well which would avoid some or all of the banked liquids, they could as noted in the CPR, install a jet pump to assist the lifting of liquids and ease the back pressure.
Ultimately they cannot stop liquids being produced in some quantity as that is part of the reservoir depletion condition, and the dew point effect, but it is manageable, and they "can" apply solutions that WILL make a big difference.
And this is why a bit of research beats an Opinion…or guess if you will!
Production figures from Saltfleetby this August….Check out the water production !
The CPR also gives details on this that the sharp eyed may have noticed . SL4 was shut I for May, June and part of July. Water disposal costs £500k estimate per annum…and I agree with BP almost all from SF4.
Water cut has doubled in 8 months from a similar production month. Around 40% compared to condensate…………Water is a well killer. Full stop!
Field region LAND
Reporting unit name SALTFLEETBY
Reporting Unit Type Code G
Reporting Unit Type Description Dry Gas Field
Operator Organisation Group ANGUS ENERGY
Onshore,Offshore Flag Onshore
Reporting Period in yyyymm format 202308
Reporting Period Month 08
Reporting Period Month Name August
Reporting Period Year 2023
Oil Production Mass (tonnes)
Oil Production Volume (m3)
Oil Production volume (mb/d)
Oil production density (Kg/m3)
Dry gas production mass (tonnes) 6,226.25
Dry gas production volume (ksm3) 7,325.00
Dry Gas Production volume (MMscf/d) 8.34
Dry Gas Production Density (kg/sm3) 0.85
Associated gas production mass (tonnes)
Associated Gas Production Volume (MMscf/d)
Associated Gas Production Volume (ksm3)
Associated Gas Production density (kg/sm3)
Gas Condensate mass (tonnes) 405.53
Gas condensate volume (ksm3) 554.00
Gas condensate volume (mb/d) 0.11
Gas condensate density (kg/sm3) 732.00
Gas Flared - Volume (Ksm3) 7.39
Gas Flared - Density (Kg/sm3) 0.85
Gas Flared - Non Hydrocarbon (%) 5.91
Gas Vented - Volume (Ksm3) 0.00
Gas Vented - Density (Kg/sm3) 0.00
Gas Vented - Non Hydrocarbon (%) 5.91
Injected water volume (m3) 0.00
Injected water volume (mb/d) 0.00
Water production volume (ksm3) 203.00
Water production volume (mb/d) 0.04
Reinjected produced water volume (m3)
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=984eeea3b1664049b12c02a28478bdaa
JD-Nau: in that case, I apologise. I do think, however, that the tone and content of your posts suggest a degree of naivety about Angus. They’re similar to lots of posts in favour of the Earl of Lucan up until about this time last year. Your confidence in Mr. Kaye is identical to others’ confidence in Mike Wells, who previously held his post. Where has he gone, by the way? Similarly, your confidence in Mr. Herbert. The Earl of Lucan was regarded as a financial expert in the same way as Mr. Herbert is now regarded as an oil and gas expert.
There is an eminently credible alternative explanation for Angus’s current situation but it’s to be found elsewhere, not on this site. Angus has very pressing financing needs. None of us knows the intentions of Aleph/Kemexon grouping, other than that between them they hold close to the number of shares required for a bid. If that’s their intention, they don’t want the share price any higher. Mr. Forrest has a ton of shares left to sell.
You have to study this company in the round. The financial aspects are at least as pressing as the operational aspects.
And this from the CPR
Remaining uncertainty about reservoir quality and dynamic performance
1. There may be sub-seismic resolution baffles to production which reduce the pressure
responsiveness of the Main Reservoir and adversely affect the production profile.
2. Condensate banking may increase the skin (excess pressure drop) of the wells, reducing
the gas productivity index and the economic condensate recovery.
3. The tortuosity in the near wellbore region may choke mass flowrates at high superficial
velocities, reducing communication between the bulk reservoir and the wellbore,
reducing the gas productivity index. The extremely rapid recovery of wellhead pressure
on shut-in supports this assessment and (2) above.
6. Water production may increase more quickly than expected, reducing performance and
life expectancy of one or more of the wells; and potentially requiring a well workover to
remedy the problem. There is initial evidence that well A4 (aka SF4) is producing above
the trend water production rate from 2012 to 2017, and this may be because it is
producing at a lower wellhead pressure and higher flowrate.
7. If the water flowrate in well A4 were to increase significantly, a smaller tubing size (2
3/8”) would need to be installed to enable the well to continue to flow 8. The P50 and
P90 schedules for start of well A4 operation after installation of this smaller tubing
(“accelerator string”) are February and May 2024, respectively. P50 and P90 Capex of
£0.5m and £0.7m, respectively, are included in the cash flow calculations.
8. Each of the frequent short-term shut-ins and flowrate changes during the first year of
production has sent a pressure pulse to the reservoir that follows the same evolution
from early time to stabilised time (Figure 2). Hence, the flowing well head pressure on
any day is the super-position of the reservoir’s individual response to each flowrate
change since August 30th, 2022. It is not possible to correctly interpret the reservoir’s
performance in the short run without sophisticated computational analysis9 and a
reliable conversion of well head pressures to bottom hole pressures. Furthermore, there
is evidence of choking in the near wellbore region and so the flowing wellhead pressures
may not correctly be “seeing” the gas further into the reservoir (refer (3) above). This is
evident from the automated history matching of wellhead pressure undertaken by the
operator’s consultant for the period August 2022 to June 2023. (By contrast, the
automated history match of wellhead gas flowrate for the period 2014-2017 against an
almost constant separator pressure (30-32 barg) showed little deviation from actual.)
There is therefore inherent uncertainty in the production forecast from the reservoir
simulation, and this uncertainty increases with increasing wellbore flowrates.
.
Continued
Remaining uncertainty about reservoir quality and dynamic performance
Continued
9. AEWB’s compression is currently designed to operate at 10 MMSCFD wellhead flowrate
at a minimum flowing wellhead pressure constraint of 17.5 barg. When the flowing
wellhead pressure declines to 17.5 barg, the flowrate will automatically reduce until
booster compression is installed10. The P90 & P50 schedule for start of booster
compressor operation is October 2024. It is likely that a 10 MMSCFD flowrate will not
be sustainable until the booster compressor is operational. P50 and P90 Capex of £2.3m
and £2.6m, respectively are included in the cash flow calculations for the booster
compressor, and this includes investment to uprate the compressors to process 12
MMSCFD wellhead gas in time for the fourth well, SF9, to enter production in January
2025.
All from actual industry experts!
Firstly, A4 was NOT shut in for all of May, June & part of July, the flow & pressure chart clearly shows shut-in and flowing periods throughout those months.
Secondly the ACTUAL field data for A4 as below, shows June at 541 bbls for the MONTH, = 18 bbl/day, the peaks in the earlier months also align with the shut-in and flowing periods, where BANKED liquids also are enabled to ACCUMULATE and this gives a SKEWED rate for the month.
Yes water is a field killer, but not really in this case, YOU just want to make it the elephant in the room, when actually it isn't at this time.
Month Water Production Gas production WGR
bbl pcm MMSCF pcm bbl/MMSCF
Oct-22 358 90 4
Nov-22 626 106 6
Dec-22 624 76 8
Jan-23 938 76 12
Feb-23 718 69 10
Mar-23 1019 75 14
Apr-23 1117 72 15
May-23 588 44 13
Jun-23 541 41 13
Add to that, and as noted in past posts, A4 is the main well with liquids contribution issues, why not the others ?? as said it is the trajectory of the well that is causing it in this well, B2 for example ALSO intersects the lower reservoir, but because it is not a horizontal producer, only a deviated well producer, then it allows for the gas to enter the well above the liquids below, and therefore flows no water to surface, only condensates with gas, condensates that are being INDUCED as it flows to surface DEW POINT !!!
Same with B07T, horizontal producer, but does NOT intersect the lower area of the reservoir and does not therefore suffer from collecting BANKED liquids in that low area of reservoir.
NEXT !!!!
WG,
I see you have taken my punch line of "the devil is in the detail" nice one, BUT I suggest if you are going to try and review such DETAIL, then get yourself to spec savers first.
Indeed it is. It’s a kick in the teeth if you don’t read all the information isn’t it!
Please see page 48 of the CPR
“A4 shut in door part of May, June, July.
The figures you give are from the CPR. My Figures are from the NSTA website that Angus are legally required to report accurately.
water volumes showing there (including the drop of rate for well SF4 being off line during the 3 months. Actually follow your snowball metaphor quite nicely….,…NEXT!!
Water produced from September 2022 in KSM3
21.00
57.00
103.00
99.00
149.00
114.00
162.00
178.00
98.00
107.00
166.00
203.00
So yes it’s doubled in comparison to codensate in real terms since it was turned back on. The chart for SF 4 corresponds perfectly to when it was switched off in may, June and July.
WG,
This is MY LAST post on the subject, because ou simply ONLY want to present an "end of the world is neigh" at ANY opportunity, which is seriously flawed.
You go on about this fekin CPR, put together by experts, BUT you also fail to recognise that the CPR utilizes a whole raft of assumptions and scenarios for their projections, which "may or may NOT" become reality. the data is FACT the projections are NOT.
Any changes within the field, design, application, variation change the written dramatically, and a CPR becomes outdated the second a variation is applied, THUS why CPR's are produced/REVISED repeatedly over years, BECAUSE they can revise applying any variations that change the projected outcome.
The production figures, charts, data etc ARE FACT in the CPR, END. !!!!
We actually agree on this. That s why I compare it to all other information available. The NSTA website is an excellent source.
Try using it!……….NEXT!
Ohhhh I forgot to add, because the "DEVIL IS IN THE DETAIL" something you conveniently forgot to mention, that B07T actually produces 40bbl/d of condensate, that is NOT included in the current 160 bbl/d production noted in the RNS's, because it is too contaminated to meet sales grade, so the true condensate number is around 200bbl/day for the field, with 18 bbl/day of water, water being about 9% of total liquids produced.
Well that” detail” is a whole different disaster isn’t it.
Nice try having a go at moving the goalposts though!
Ruthy the Journalist has been busy LOL
What fekin goal posts, gezzzz you are really a bitter, perlock, who only looks for negatives then tries to inflate them into something far worse than reality.
What you do is exactly the opposite of what the industry does, including myself, we don't look at them as end of the world problems or issues, we take what we see and look for SOLUTIONS to better or even resolve the situation/s, something I have spent the majority of my 30 years DOING !!!
AND there are PLENTY of options and solutions available for SLBY to significantly benefit the field for the longer term.
As said, I will leave you to pump your DOOM and DISASTER sheite out, because it really is lame and flawed.
No more from me, I have better things to be doing today than responding to your doomsday drivel !!
He can’t hold the price it will fly sooner or later back to 4-5p