Member Info for Alan2017

Pboo - just because you take a photo doesn’t make your an expert in photography ..just like filling up your car with petrol doesn’t make you an expert in the oil industry. People thank you for your photos....I’ve never seen a post asking for your expert opinion on the well packing off or what is the tripping times for a completion string.... So far you have posted that the crate contains an ESP...then you corrected yourself and said whatever was in it has been removed, but never said where they put it?!?!...and then you further corrected yourself by saying how do you know what’s in the crate and that the ESP is again inside it ...because it has a large crate at one end....ending your statement with does it contain a pump. All because of a photo posted on Twitter by Cunners (which is actually a SPS). You’ve never responded to my links highlighting how you you are factually incorrect and what you are looking for in terms of shape of box is actually an SPS....nothing what so ever to do with an ESP. Good intentions when posting are fine, but when your are wrong ...at least know when to stop digging a deeper hole for self. I’ll correct rampers / derampers and I’ll those who are continually posting factually incorrect information...as it serves this board / PIs no good. Sorry if your ego is bruised ...you can use the bicycle pump to inflate it again lol Can you spot the ESP in the below link? Lol https://goo.gl/images/2UkeDc

Ahh just checked the RNS....looked in Angus website first and they haven’t updated it there yet.

What has changed since the 23rd April RNS which confirmed the finances for the 25% acquisition and OGA approval. http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/RNS-23.04.18-Angus-Energy-Completes-Financing-For-Balcombe-Acquisition-.pdf

tkr234 - considering you are invested in Angus then you should already be able to answer your question.

Pboo - your silence is golden lol. I appreciate the photos / videos you have posted on WealdOilers as it’s certainly helped answer a lot of questions or thrown up more questions to a supposedly closed matter, but in this case second guessing a shape of a crate(s) doesn’t work and just causes unnecessary confusion with the wrong conclusion. As I said very few people in the oil industry gave run ESPs as it’s quite a well specific piece of equipment.

Exstatex - to be honest when you are handing the keys to a council to make an impartial decision on a technological process that not even 99% of the planet has been involved in...well you are asking for problems. Perhaps they are taking their information from DrillorDrop and Twitter. Either way the report was quite detailed, but needs to include birds to appease them. Seems like West Sussex council were happy with BB well test. And HH well test is good to go (unless someone can update with new facts) and that site is in Surrey and will be using the same Flare. It would be interesting to know whether the Council have been using an oil industry expert.

Pboo - I’m glad you have cleared up this matter and now agree you were describing the long crate with a large crate next to it as an SPS. Angus will be running a downhole ESP (S stands for submergible) deep in the well. For educational purposes an ESP looks like a shiny metallic tube on the outside with all the components in the inside ...hence why your comment “If you look at the crate the end of the right hand side is bigger and square.” is factually incorrect. I know this as I have run ESPs on multiple wells.

Pboo - apologies for the super delayed reply, but I've been tied up with work. With regards to your comment "If you look at the crate the end of the right hand side is bigger and square. Pump in there????" You have obviously looked at the photo Cunners posted on Twitter regarding an ESP https://twitter.com/pjc_cunningham/status/989080009439694848 Clearly the pump is larger hence your comment regarding bigger crate at the end. This is not an ESP..even though if you do a Google search for ESP it appears under images. This is actually a SPS system used for transferring oil around oil terminals, pipeline booster, water injection. The spec sheet for the photo Cunners posted on Twitter is for carrying out surface fluid transfers https://summitesp.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Summit-HPS-brochure.pdf �The system design is based on proven electric submersible pumps (ESPs) already in use in thousands of downhole applications.� Thats the clue based upon Electrical SUBMERSIBLE pump. Nowhere does it mention the production of oil. An ESP is ran downhole within the production string and is submerged within the well fluid. The photo of the piece of equipment you guys are using on Twitter page Wealdoilers is not suitable for our operations. The following link explains the difference between an ESP and a SPS (which you are referring to). I hope it is of help. http://oilesp.blogspot.com/2011/11/as-system-design-engineers-and.html https://www.geoilandgas.com/sites/geog/files/gea32423_sps_brochure.pdf I can see why you guys think it will be used after latching on to the word ESP, but it's not designed for this use and hence why I have said you need to base your evidence on facts and not feelings. This is even more important when you are posting photos / beliefs on Twitter (WealdOilers). Even most guys in the oil industry have not even seen an ESP before. This video shows: SPS after 42 seconds ESP after 2min 7sec https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt7EWsFyXv4

It seems highly strange that one particular council would question the flare stack to be used when it it has already been used in Surrrey at HH in 2017, as well as UKOG Bradford Bridge test and will again be used at HH. With regards to Councillors wanting to have the air monitored�.well if they had read the document then it would have already answered their question https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/psc/rh17-6jh-cuadrilla-balcombe-limited-epr-ab3307xd/supporting_documents/09%20EPRA%20%20Balcombe%20%20Gas%20Management%20Plan.pdf Under 6.3 BAT Justification for Flaring of Associated Gas Pages 14-17 �Due to the unknown composition, quantity and pressure of any associated gas that may be encountered during the well testing operation, a sampling programme of any associated gas encountered will be implemented by Cuadrilla.� This section also goes in to detail regarding the decision making with respect to the 3 different types of flare devices available. The report after careful deliberation chooses the Shrouded Ground Flare and states the reasons why 10. PW WELL TEST SHROUDED GROUND FLARE Page 22 - 24 �On page 26 Due to recent sensitivity surrounding the industry and experience gained from recent flaring activities onshore UK, it is recommended that video footage of the flare is acquired whist it is in operation. It provides evidence to support compliance with threshold limits.� Photos of the shrouded flare in use at Bradford Bridge are shown below. https://twitter.com/UKOGlistedonAIM/status/919929752269606912 https://twitter.com/WealdOilers/status/964046232661393408 �The PWWT shrouded flare was commissioned and manufactured by Cuadrilla in 2011 for its own use onshore UK and formed part of the Cuadrilla well testing package.� Every design of the flare is to conform with the Environmental Agency BAT regulations as stated below �The new enclosed EWT 9.5 flare brings together the latest enclosed clean incinerator technology and operational well testing experience to deliver Best Available Techniques �BAT� as set out by the Environment Agency�s Onshore Oil & Gas Sector Guidance� .http://www.pwwelltest.com/ewt-9-5-flare-contract-ukog/ No objection was raised by WSCC with regards to the flare. See link to document http://www.ukogplc.com/images/assets/WSCC%20Recommendation%20040917.pdf 7.11 WSCC Ecology: No objection. There is no reasonable expectation of harm to local biodiversity, thus requesting repeat-ecological surveys at this stage would not be proportionate to the risk of harm. http://www.pwwelltest.com/pwwt-awarded-broadford-bridge-1-well-test/

Drafted on 20th March 2018 and issued 23rd March 2018�this was prior to OGA authorising Angus Energy�s 25% acquisition. https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/psc/rh17-6jh-cuadrilla-balcombe-limited-epr-ab3307xd/supporting_documents/Non%20Tech%20Sum%20%20Revised%20v1.2.pdf On page 5 of their report it states �Cuadrilla Balcombe Limited (Cuadrilla) is engaged in the exploration and production of petroleum onshore United Kingdom and holds 75% interest in Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence (PEDL) 244 within which it retains Operator status.� This information was correct as of 23rd March 2018. Since then their HS&E Consultant added his or hers revision of the text / site plans. Sadly as happens so many times in the oil industry�the initial information was not revised to include OGA authorising Angus Energy�s 25% acquisition and because the OGA had not approved the transfer of Operatorship to Angus Energy, then yes Cuadrilla still retain Operator status (at the time of writing the document). Prior to the OGA thumbs up, Cuadrilla owned 75% of PEDL 244 (which is what they state in their document)�.now the Trolls trying to muddy the water by planting seeds of doubt are not telling you the facts. The other 25% was owned by AJ Lucas and is confirmed link below �In association with its investment in Cuadrilla, Lucas also owns an 18.75% and 25% direct interest respectively in two of Cuadrilla�s English exploration permits, PEDL 165 in the Bowland Basin and PEDL 244 in the Weald Basin� http://www.lucas.com.au/index.php/investments/cuadrilla-resoucres So with the Angus Energy 25% acquisition the other two companies holding has been reduced and Cuadrilla now has 56.25% of Balcombe. This is confirmed by Angus in the link below. http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Angus-Energy-Aquires-25-Of-The-Balcombe-Licence-PEDL244_.pdf Unfortunately some sloppy writing by Cuadrilla is to blame, but the amount of posts on this board in the past week regarding a non-issue is highly disappointing. Don�t converse with the troll. From Day 1 their intent has been obvious. By multiple posters reporting the Trolls individual posts (press report button in bottom right of post window�next to recommend button) and this will highlight to Admin that they are troublemakers and hopefully the posts will be removed. You will find the board will be a much better place to have genuine discussions regarding Angus Energy / Weald Basin / actions or inactions by BOD.

20questions - check out my post titled "BB drilling mistakes" on 21st February...there are more than 5 as its an amalgamation of previous posts. This should answer your question.

Wasit - haha I didn’t notice that. Now why can’t they go and put that on Twitter...really need to sort out their PR. It’s a shame as those slick videos from the early days after the IPO were really good.

Wasit - I really don’t see the need for the ESPs to be used at Lidsey until the number of crude tankers per week is increased. We are only allowed 8 per week with each tanker holding circa 221bbls. You can only pump as fast as you can get it off site. It’s like using a Ferrari to do the school run. Expensive toy to use when old school nodding donkey can do the job. Now if and when the tanker numbers are increased or there is another means of transporting the oil then that’s a different story. I was more interested in his £1million profit for every 100bbls produced with oil above $75. Sooner we can get Brockham flow test and online then the high SP we saw last year should be back in range.

TrueOil - without being disparaging to Pboo as he’s actually done more than most on here when it comes to going to the sites and kept people up to date.. I actually work in the oil industry running multiple operations from site preparing through to first oil. I don’t need to speculate as I know when things are done correctly or not done correctly ...such as I knew BB was screwed up in October. I believe in posting facts with links to back it up. If something is incorrect then I will counter that post. You are entirely free not to read my posts lol

Pboo - firstly lesson 1 in the oil industry...never listen to a Geologist which is SS background lol They are usually wrong. You are far better off employing guys with a seasoned track record who don’t have any share options in the company they are working for ...you certainly get more reliable decisions from seasoned guys who know if they make a mistake then they will face the chop. Sadly that is one bad point about Angus and UKOG where the senior guys are also some of the main share holders Thank you for your kind comments saying I have a 100% record in accuracy with my posts. I don’t speculate and review the information at hand. It would be lovely to let emotion get in the way, but that is unhealthy. Unless you have looked inside the box and identified an ESP...then you can’t say it’s on there.

Pboo - your posts on....is the crate full, empty and now partially empty are as erratic as a Vonk interview lol Ok I'll keep it simple....how does the ESP downhole pump work? It's powered by electricity.....And where does the electricity come from....the surface.....and how does the electricity get to the ESP...via a power cable that is strapped to the outside of the production tubing....and yes ... connected to an external port. Please find the link below to explain it better if you require diagrams. http://petrowiki.org/ESP_power_cable It would be highly incompetent to leave such a piece of equipment outside for 3 weeks.....what purpose would it serve? The manufacturer would also state this in the contract and deem the warrantee void if anything was to happen. I read posts on the WealdOilers twitter page and I sometimes just shake my head how folk with zero oilfield experience come up with wacky theories like how UKOG would transport 15-28% HCL acid in a plastic tote tank. Any hole in it and you have a Health and Safety disaster lol But a picture was posted stating exactly this....You can't transport acid like this...it has to be in a metal tank with secondary bunding. https://twitter.com/WealdOilers/status/964043872191082496?s=20 "How they dissolve the Bentonite drilling mud that is blocking the natural fractures. Acid wash. "

Pboo - never had a delivery from Amazon where the packaging is grossly over the top lol https://goo.gl/images/MP4YmR When I pointed out to you that keeping an ESP with sensitive electrical connections in an opened crate to the elements ...which would be for over 3 weeks.... you can back and said on 18th April ...."the actual crate is about 10 metres long and yes what ever was in it has been taken out".....which means the crate is empty yes?!?! So where is the ESP? Angus would be crazy to leave an expensive piece of equipment on site for so long. It would be stored in a warehouse until need. The crate was for the sucker rode(s) that you see next to the crate. You don't know how many they used.

Skinnyboy - understand now what you meant :)

Skinnyboy - what do you mean before paying anything back? Once Angus has been given the green light to become the Operator then they have to pay the 2nd £2million instalment. Unless you’re referring to another payment?

Wasit - totally agree. It’s time the BOD actually do what they are generously paid for. I truly hope they will now just focus on the assets they have on their portfolio and most importantly...repair their relationship with SCC, so we don’t have any more delays. I would like to see an update...even it’s on Twitter of how work is progressing at Brockham with the generator / National Grid hook up. And will be interested to see how the HH bounce factor will play out once they start testing HH. I would have preferred not to have stretched ourselves with the Balcombe 25% addition, but seeing it’s now done...then that first flow test there could be extremely interesting for Angus SP and standing as a Weald player. All the best.