Member Info for adoubleuk

Scooby,

"Hello all, with there being a 4 day window from Lincoln crestal rns regarding dst / flare sunday 8th and the next update with flow rates etc, should we expect there to be a similar rns on Friday / Monday with details on WW?"

I'd be expecting Monday, though could be wrong of course.

EV,

"lovely big black flare full of Benzine"

Benzine? Well I suppose so, along with the countless other fractional distillates which comprise raw crude oil.

What have you been smoking?

shutte (et al),

"Since it isn't and oil appears to be flowing, I reckon that the rumour will turn out to be correct (in that it's a massive discovery)"

I'm believing this rumour of a flare because there's one poster here whose word I trust confirming it.

The earlier 'media leak' / rumour a while back about a 'huge' find intrigued me, and got me thinking about the pressure gauges in LC. I posted, alluding vaguely to that, but didn't want to explain my thinking at the time.

However now, assuming the well is flowing OK, I can't help thinking about those gauges, and whether they're seeing any 'read-across' relating to the DST on WC. If so, it would imply that the hypothesis that Lincoln and Warwick are all the same big field, and that would be good news indeed.

Even if that's the case, I'm not sure that it'll get a mention in an eventual 'results' RNS, but one can but hope...

Toffeemania,

"Could they have been still drilling at that point??" (time of issuing RNS)

No the drilling phase was finished. At that point in time the rig was bobbing around like a lazy cork, waiting for the weather to calm down. And now it has, they're no doubt back to work, doing other things in preparation for the DST.

"Monday 7am"

At this rate, Reverandy will have to start a sweepstake.

slipanchor,

A 'GHOST SHIP'? Oh yeah, so there is. And there's another one interfering with the Rem Trader. Very spooky. I wonder if the giant squid has anything to do with it?

fergu,

"Your “imaginary “ paragraph, could you comment further on such costs?"

I'm sorry, but I can't, really, because I haven't a clue what UK onshore rig dayrate figures are, nor the costs for a coiled tubing / nitrogen spread is. Maybe I could give a 'ballpark' figure, but it's likely to be wildly wrong, so I won't do so.

Instead, maybe we can look at what has been done so far, and what a possible alternative could have been.

Tha actual scenario. The well was drilled, logged, the completion string run, and the 'xmas tree' installed. Then the rig was rigged-down, mobilised off-site, and the test spread and CT equipment moved in. The CT injector head is rigged to the tree (using a mobile crane), and testing started. Had the well 'come in' naturally, with gas as expected, at some point the CT would have been rigged down and demobilised, and the EWT continued under natural flow.

A perfectly good, step-by-step plan. You have rig costs 'x' (by far the most costly single fixed expense, other than the well itself), followed by CT cost 'y' (including crane), then followed only by test spread costs 'z' for the duration of the EWT. From recollection, the time for rig-down and move of the rig through to the EWT starting was something like a month, maybe a bit more. (I'm too lazy to check).

With the rig remaining in place, instead of cost 'x' then followed by 'y+z' shortly followed by just 'z', you'd have had 'x+y+z' for a month at least.

As a very rough guess, this could have shoved an extra couple of million onto the bills. Maybe more, maybe less, I don't know, but it would be a significant expense. Such a 'rig in' version of operations is common, especially in remote locations where all contingencies have to be covered at the same time, and of course offshore. But that isn't the case at WN, so the plan as performed was perfectly acceptable.

I agree with you saying " why do we need further approval for an ESP which are widely utilised in the industry-shame that this had to be deduced from a Rathlin PR meeting." Yup, a poor show. And I still fail to see how the EA gets involved, except possibly approving the move back in of a workover rig, with the further truck traffic that entails, and other 'surface' considerations. However if 'on the ground' information is the only way we can get (sparse) information, let's hope there's some more!

I know for a fact that there are at least a couple of posters here who live not-too-distant from the wellsites. It would be interesting to know if there's any activity evident at either WNB od WNA locations, such as a foundation slab for the storage tank being laid at WNA, and whether WNB looks 'ready to go'. Of course, the bad weather may be having a negative effect at presen, but nowt to be done in that respect. Plus surely any local resident in the immediate vicinity will have been informed via 'community meetings' and suchlike whether any truck convoys are anticipated in the near future.

MrWilks,

"Esvagt Celina has 2 fast recovery boats in the water, does this tell us anything."

Amazingly, 'thestreet' may be correct that they're having a man overboard drill.

HOWEVER...

The FRB's may not be in the water at all.

The crew of the safety boat frequently run the FRB engines while on deck, as a check that all's OK and 'ready to go' when the engines are on, the AIS transmitter automatically turns on as well, so it will give a position for the FRB at the time, even if the boat's still on the deck.

There's a way of checking this on marinetraffic. Check the time of the FRB's 'fix', and the exact position. Then pull up the safety boat's 'past track', and see where she was at the time the FRB signal came up. Often the positions are the same, indicating it's just an engine test run.

artyth,

" my gut instinct still is to follow the money"

Yes, and mine too. (Just to underline the fact that although I'm raising some questions here, they still shouldn't be construed as 'deramping'.) Just because the SP has fallen back to a worryingly low place, there's no way personally I'm selling right now, because it'd be a foolish thing to do. We haven't received any specific bad news of late, but we haven't received anything good, neither, so of course the SP will 'wander'.

I do think, though, that with the passage of time, S&S could do worse than to issue a sort of 'roundup status report' indicating exactly what's happening with the entire portfolio.

You see that thing recently where Kay Burley 'interviewed' an empty seat? Well those two brrmedia 'interviews' recently issued by RBD were the same, but the other way round. There was no interviewer, and anyone can just talk to a camera.

Not good enough.

PDMSP,

I ran out of space, earlier, but I'd like to expand a bit more on my interpretation. (This is tech stuff only). I wrote:

" Quite probably N2 'lift' continued while reeling CT in uphole. But once at surface, natural flow didn't occur. Small amounts of fluid may have been recovered, but nothing which constitutes a valid 'sample'."

OK, we've got CT at surface, maybe a little gas flare. So after waiting an unspecified amount of time for the well to 'come in' (which it doesn't), we then run CT back in the hole. Maybe do this a few times, to re-inject N2 and get things to flow. At a certain point the fluid level is reached. The technical word for this is 'tagging'. It's a word used in that 'community report'. Tagging the static fluid level is observed on the weight indicator gauge in the CT control cabin, possibly THE most important instrument there. And of course the depth-indicator tells you where, exactly, you've tagged.

Unfortunately, TS didn't mention the depth. It's unspecified.

This initial 'EWT' was performed 'rigless'. The rig was rigged-down and moved out, and the CT moved in. Standard procedure in the circumstances, or at least one 'standard variant'. The most economical, because why pay a rig dayrate when it's just going to be essentially standing by over the well, acting as nothing other than a glorified crane? Far cheaper to get an actual mobile crane to suspend the CT injector.

If the rig HAD been kept in place (now entering an imaginary scenario), CT could have been rigged-down, likewise the Xmas tree, BOP's rigged-up, the completion pulled, and an ESP completion run, once an ESP had been sourced. Rig down BOP's install tree, re-start the test using the pump.

But that's 'big boy' stuff. Expensive. And unbudgeted-for by Rathlin, who aren't exactly Exxon. So no blame that that's not what happened.

It ain't the end of the world, by any means. But first we appeared to be being told that EWT would be 'waiting on' a storage tank, more recent explanations mention an ESP, and now S & S aren't talking EWT at all, but instead drilling on WNB. Which is puzzling, to say the least.

Btw, it'd be really good if someone living in the area could go see if the WNB pad looks like it might be ready to go. The other day I mentioned those 'Drill or drop' freaks' article about the construction having been stalled. What I failed to notice was thet it was dated Nov 2018, not this year! Mea culpa, I hang my head in shame.

Olderandwiser,

"I don't think that adoubleuk is disputing the fact that oil will flow at WN, but simply that we have no hard data still to quantify the size of the discovery yet."

No, I am certainly not stating that WN can't be persuaded to flow. Although my belief is that flowrates per well may be low. I posted the same many weeks ago, but that suspicion back then was based on nothing more than gut-feeling. Now, it includes the sparse further information we now appear to have.

But as regards the 'size of the discovery', PDMSP has pointed you to the relevent part of the RNS, which is based on Rathlin's 'Operator data' (ie it's not a 3rd-party CPR) and interpretation.

I am not disputing anything published in the RNS. Simply pointing out that two particular words are absent from it. 'Permeability', and 'flow'.

PDMSP,

" Point me to the paragraph in the RNS where we have been told it didn’t flow."

I can't, for the simple reason that the RNS makes no mention of the brief EWT attempt whatsoever. Which I feel is significant in itself.

Instead, I gleaned that implied knowledge from those 'Community meeting notes' that you yourself posted here, and for which I thanked you. Unfortunately though, it's those very same notes which triggered the 'cautious' line of thinking I'm now following. Here are the two relevent paragraphs.

"He (TS) said that this underlines the challenges with exploration work and the discovery of the unknown – this positive outcome hadn’t been anticipated. TS said that this meant, initially, that the testing team were unable to lift all of the liquids in the well to surface in an effective manner. He said, in light of this, the team performed an N2 lift which involved the injection of nitrogen into the wellbore to try and lift all fluids to the surface.

He explained that this was permitted by the Environment Agency and is a tried and tested method of lifting liquids to surface as part of oil and gas field testing and production. He said that it is a safe system of operation. TS explained that wellbore fluids were recovered at the surface with associated gas but there was not enough energy in the reservoir to recover any reservoir fluids to surface, but that fluids were tagged someway up the wellbore."

It's the final phrase which is rather telling, even if it appears to contradict itself. But I can see in my (technical) mind's eye what occurred, even if those notes were maybe written by a non-oilfield person, maybe paraphrasing TS's actual words. Why and how can I make such an interpretation? Simple. Because I've seen the same thing actually happen, live, and in the field.

Yes, with CT (coiled tubing) in the hole and injecting nitrogen, gas (including the nitrogen, of course) may be seen at surface and flared. In fact, we saw a photo of the rather feeble flare, but have no proof that the picture actually came from WN. Quite probably N2 'lift' continued while reeling CT in uphole. But once at surface, natural flow didn't occur. Small amounts of fluid may have been recovered, but nothing which constitutes a valid 'sample'.

Oil certainly didn't flow and get burned, because that would nave been a large, smokey flame, and the tree-huggers would have reported it pdq.

I'm sorry, but it's you who opened Pandora's box by posting those 'community notes', not me. But it was on reading them that I suspected that we're not getting the full story.

PDMSP,

"The information we have pointing to a world class discovery at West Newton is in the RNS with volumetrics. "

I beg to differ with you on that statement. Purely on a technical basis, and I think you have some knowledge of such technicalities.

I also beg to differ with the idea that people don't invest 16 million into a possibly dead-end project. W.Newton is obviously not a 'dry hole', but it hasn't flowed oil yet, and the 'revised' EWT obviously isn't progressing on the ground yet, otherwise we'd have got wind of it from the unwashed tree-huggers.

Let's face it, the Bowland Shale rivals anything to be found in the USA Permian, and Cuadrilla, Igas, and others have poured tens of millions into it, via their shareholders. And what's happened? End of the line, due to politics, nimbys, and everything else.

W.Newton is 'conventional', so no fracking' (maybe), so why not go ahead as previously announced? EWT.

Plus as others have pointed out, Cali seems to be off the radar for now, and Romania doesn't appear to be progressing, neither. And the SP is not good.

It's not so much a question of impatience, more one of feeling frustrated that the company seems to be loosing momentum.

PDMSP,

"There is a world class discovery of epic proportions at West Newton."

I'm afraid you have no justification yet for saying such a thing. An oilfield which will not flow naturally is hard to describe as 'world class', no matter what its volumetric extent may be. We don't yet know the oil's 'quality' (API rating), nor how permeable the formation is, ie ability to allow flow, and which would be empirically established through an EWT. We've been told the Kirkham is an oil formation with a gas cap. Is the gas cap the pressure 'drive mechanism' (obviously not high pressure) ? If so, the gas won't be sold at market, in fact any gas released by produced oil will probably have to be reinjected.

" I’ve chucked my buttons in with the 24,000,000 others recently added and that’s where my buttons are staying. Moaning on here so that Bert from Barnsley takes a few buttons out of the pot is not going to make one bit of difference."

I'm personally rather responsible for having started this particular thread. And I didn't do so with the intention of trying to influence anybody in regard to their investment strategy. Instead, to bring up some technical questions to which I think we shareholders deserve some answers, or at least answers for which the data may already be available. The reason I raise such questions here on a public BB is that I live in a place where I nobody else to talk about these things with, and I think the purpose of this BB is for such discussion anyway. Plus I'd probably be wasting my time emailing any of the companies concerned with such questions, because I might very well not receive a reply.

PDMSP,

" Worried? Off ya pop."

There's a difference between worry and panic. I think I'll hang in here a bit longer, if it's OK with you.

bladehater,

A 'big rig' won't be required for WN. Just a 500 hp (or even smaller) 'workover' rig to pull the existing tubing string and re-run with an ESP completion. But I haven't any knowledge about rig availability in the UK. And yet again, no mention has been made about waiting for a rig being a delay cause.

" Imo, Rathlin realised how good the well is and cancelled this part of the deal as they get their £16m for the drill anyway."

For lack of evidence, that's as good a speculation as any other. Of course, it highlights another little niggling detail about the whole setup. Rathlin being a private company, and thus not subject to stockmarket regulations such as reporting via RNS and so on, we don't know much about their decision-making, nor details or their shareholder base. I can't help wondering if the share-swap might not have been rather a case of wishful thinking on S & S's part, with them being over-optimistic as to the outcome. Without news as to how (or if) negotiations are progressing, I suppose we can only make uninformed guesses about the issue for now.

TTF,

"An SOB your nae much better lad, its always a fragment of the story wi all the wrong time lines. If your a Buckie loon an initials NI or GM then I'll let you off ."

Don't know SotB's initials, but he's definitely a Buckie loon who gets his timelines wrong, but probably because he spends too much time there. But aren't they all?

Omigod. TTF's back! Where have you been, man?

The Thing says:

"Folks you've nae worries here just be patient"

I'm fuelling up the car fast and heading for the hills. Haven't a clue what's going to happen, but if the TTF is near to the door of this particular house, I anticipate volatility of some sort or another.

Help!

(Though from the hills, I'll be watching things through high-powered binoculars with a rifle in my hands.)

MTcup,

(don't know why I'm still replying to your posts, but I will)

"Curiously one of the biggest SP drops of 5% was on the Friday before the WD results, millions of shares were dumped and then the SP bombed on the Monday, would a dude from the vessel or driller be responsible for telling his mates some information, that's hardly believable"

In that you're correct. On a rig, there are very few people who understand the 'full picture' of the well in progress. Plus there's another thing. One can 'clamp down' on (or at least limit the contents of) communications from the rig, but the idea of the Driller phoning some stockbroker to tell him what's happening is quite frankly absurd and laughable. Enough to 'move the market'? No way.

Equally, though, it's downright impossible to stop any 'oilman' talking about his work, even at polite dinner parties. (On the rare occasions that people like Drillers attend such things.) But saying things like 'we've seen oil at the shakers' doesn't move the stockmarket.

No, 'street scuttlebutt' is just useful for people who truly understand the lingo to get an impression of what's going on. And even then, and even if the information one gets might seem contradictory, one can make the wrong call, like I did with WD.

Also, Chablard says

"Worth remembering that there are quite a few persons that work in the Aberdeen offices, both for Bluewater and Spirit etc. I would imagine that between them they hold a substantial number of shares."

True. But even then, no matter how many they are 'in the know', it would require them to work in concertation together with a fixed motive to move the SP. And be working through a broker who would transfer their orders to an 'Auto' system, because it's the 'A' trades which 'fix' the price, moment-by-moment. That scenario doesn't hold water. Plus also, such people are supposed to be at their desks, working, not spending their time calling their brokers!

Nope, I'm convinced that that particular SP happening didn't result from some street rumour.

SotB,

"Nothing confidential in the last RNS it clearly states testing soon......of course soon in the oil industry means just that and sometimes more."

Utterly agree. When one's in the 'hot seat' at the 'sharp end' of things, the worst questions one can be asked are things like 'when will that happen?', ' how long will that take?', and so on. One can plan, maybe have estimates, but that's all. Plus also one has to grit one's teeth and refrain from uttering profanities, because one knows that anyone asking such things is soft in the head. Because in every step of any oilfield operation, even when it's maybe been done a million times before, what you're doing is the millionth-and-one, and you can't be sure it'll work out like the other times.

I find the movements of the two supply boats quite interesting. We know the weather's now OK, but other things are going on as well.

And don't ask me what, 'cos I don't know.