Member Info for Alan2017

Bumblebee - Sadly LSE rules state not to post any personal information, but I've been right at every step.
All I'll say is i look after more operations than all of UK onshore. And sadly I will have to draw the curtains on this conversation lol

JD-Nau - it's a dumb business strategy....everything goes to plan and now you are 2 weeks ahead of schedule with equipment not even ordered....site is shut down = waste of money.

Equipment arrives early by several days...you pay just a standby rate, equipment is rigged up and tested

No oil company would be following the Angus model.

nhawan - you have that wrong...the table is self explanatory and not sure why it is causing confusion

Slide 7
http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Angus-BROCKHAM-WORK-PROGRAMME.pdf

14 days as I have already said is LEAD TIME FOR ARRIVAL OF WELL TEST KIT
10 days is for INSTALLATION, TESTING & COMISSION OF EQUIPMENT
And then they will start the flow test.

nhawan - thats not what they have said in the official presentation.....but yes I agree. Any other oil company would never have down time (enforced shut down period) so I don't trust the days issued.

Quote 14 days and then get it in 3 days.....Angus look great, but its not the way to do business.

Most efficient way is to start rigging up the well test equipment while isolating the water zone, so you move straight into well testing instead of spending up to 10 days to rig it all up.

Wasit - definitely not Winx lol

nhawan - I'm taking the times and operation sequence from what Angus said in their presentation. Its all in there.

Slide 8 at the bottom it says "Immediately after the completion of the events above the rig will be demobilised and the well-test kit will be ordered for delivery to the Brockham site. This is expected to take approximately 14 days."

http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Angus-BROCKHAM-WORK-PROGRAMME.pdf

It also says that in the timings table. Thats how an oil company does a timeline...it's a continuous timeline, but I am now sceptical after the rig arrived so early.

Still require permissions and EA inspection.

And the rig is on a standby rate as soon as it leaves the yard. It goes on full day rate the it is fully rigged up, tested and Angus have accepted it. So any shut down for waiting on well test equipment and rigging up is on full day rate. That is a standard term in any rig contract.

Scallywag - I now own the domain askalan.com lol

I will be like Keyser Soze....

Well one thing is for sure that there are 2 timelines being used.

One for the company to plan and order equipment and another more conservative timeline for PIs. It's great the rig is on site, but now I wonder if we will actually have to wait 14 days for the well testing equipment....sigh.

Expect all the major timelines to be ahead of schedule...company looks good, but it's rare in real operations to chop huge chunks out of a workover job.

Still....if the SP rises and continues to rise to where it has been then I'll be a happy person.

rxdav - I chuckled at your early post lol

gkb47 - no worries....shame the board has to be filled with incorrect information. Tiring having to have to constantly correct those posts...even when it was only discussed last month. Sigh.

Pboo - so now you're saying pumping acid is positive for the well and increases production. Excellent.

Can i ask you are you still invested in Angus as your posts today do come across as being negative.

Renegade - all down to porosity / permeability of the surrounding rock.

Pboo - it's lovely to have an opinion, but I'm just reminding new members on here that you have zero oilfield experience.
It's nothing negative, but happens to be a fact.

Renegade - only damage it will make to the casing is to puncture more holes into it lol So no issues.

Perforations will be carried out over same depths. The logging run to ascertain the water zone will also provide valuable information to Angus regarding how the perforations performed.

No risk at all and before Pboo comes back and says I haven't answered the question, UKOG did the exact same thing at HH.

Pboo - "As Alan will not answer your question I will. In my opinion they are re perforating because they think there is a possibility that the perforation have become blocked due to acid wash and the quantity of nitrogen used to try and get the well to flow."

Nitrogen doesn't image your well. And please tell me how much acid was pumped?

gkb47 - I wouldn't listen to somebody who has zero oilfield experience. My reply to you is self explanatory.

gkb47 - folk have to be patient for answers. Sadly a lot of what I have written today can be found on early posts from end of January. As a general note to all you can get a lot of your answers from my historical posts....then I can answer pertinent questions quicker.

Angus i hope will run a scraper to remove any metallic debris within the 200m perforated section that can damage the rubber elastomer on the Bridge Plug. As you run the bridge plug which has a very small clearance in relation not the inside diameter of the casing, it will push any debris that might be there.

I think it is prudent to re-perforate as it will be 5 months from originally perforating the well to actually flowing it.

Please read my post from this morning with the Youtube link. It clearly shows how a water zone is isolated and how you can still produce from perfations from above.

bfc - I'm quoting what you said....I didn't write those posts. You did.

Boardroom squabbles resolved.
Water zone at bottom of well to be isolated within next month allowing most of 200m perforated section to be tested from.
Continue original plan of carrying out EWT at Brockham.
Angus state intention to carry out EWT at Balcombe in 2019. 2018 flow test had to be curtailed from high flow rates of plus 3,000bopd due to surface separator capacity and production tubing size.

So what has changed since October 2018? We were waiting for Brockham EWT test to start (which we still are) and now Balcombe has been confirmed to have an EWT in 2019.

The SP rise in 2017 was waiting to get approval to drill Lidsey and Angus had not acquired 25% stake in Balcombe.

What you write now doesn't make sense.

Sadly he has forgotten what I wrote on 14th March.....looong sigh.

Pboo - right on cue lol.

Sadly thats what they want to tell their share holders....rather than holding up their hands to a double mistake...very expensive.

This is a most interesting actual where UKOG refuse to say that they actually used acid at Bradford Bridge.....I didn't see Weald Oilers posting this link?

https://drillordrop.com/2019/03/21/new-questions-as-oil-company-rules-out-acid-injection-in-weald-wells/

Did UKOG use acid while drilling the wells? No
Did UKOG use acid to run both liners in the hole when they got stuck? No
Did they use acid to free the liners? No
Did they use acid to stop the massive fluid losses after pressuring up the well and fracturing the formation? No...they used Lost Circulation Material to cure the losses...sadly for investors it also seals up the fractures you produce from and even acid can't dissolve it.
Hence......why they sidetracked.
2nd liner packed off and they could not circulate properly. Did they pump acid to free the liner? No
UKOG squeezed cement deep into the reservoir sealing up the fractures.
Bradford Bridge Report Card would read...Loooooong sigh, Come and See me lol

Pboo posted a link on UKOG BB on 15th January subject title “Worth a read’

http://www.ukogplc.com/page.php?pID=115

"Acidisation was therefore not selectively administered to any specific limestone horizon. Whilst the results of the tests showed inflows indicating some initial permeabilty together with natural gas blows, the results were disappointing.

It was concluded that during the significant pressure draw-downs associated with the test’s coiled tubing lifting methodology, the fractures within the predominantly shale test sections closed-up, reducing permeability effectively to zero.” Coiled tubing lifting = Nitrogen

So they firstly blamed Nitrogen and then Acid (yet never actually state they used it at BB) and this is confirmed by DrillorDrop.

Sadly 2 mistakes brought the curtain down on Broadford Bridge until they get their act together. Follow Good Oilfield Drilling Practices and they will have a nice well.

I see BFC is repeating the same stuff he posted several weeks ago. Shame the previous thread has been removed as I could have just copied and pasted what I wrote back then.

BFC posted on 13th October 2018 titled "SP set to Rocket !!" Now bear in mind he is talking about 2017 as some folk were confused a couple of weeks ago.

"During next 3 - 4 weeks should see final pieces put together (according to well respected poster alan2017) to put the SP where it was last year , and maybe surpass last years high.... Well looking at chart for last year ..on June 14th SP was 9.88 and WOW !! By 24 the July 32p"

And he also posted on 17th October 2018 titled "Looking back to 2017"

"Between June & July Angus soared from 9.88p to 31p...Yes WOW!!....so where could it climb to in the next 2 months as a P"

And even more positivity from the same poster on 20th October 2018 titled "Comparison"

"Angus Brockham Kimmeridge is considered to be 4x larger than Hosre Hill Kimmeridge...and to be PRODUCING before Xmas huge quantities of oil from initially one well then within weeks from 3 wells...this is going to see a MASSIVE re-rate of of Angus's share price...from currently 11p to 30,40,50+"

So what has changed since October 2018? We were waiting for Brockham EWT test to start (which we still are) and now Balcombe has been confirmed to have an EWT in 2019.

The SP rise in 2017 was waiting to get approval to drill Lidsey and Angus had not acquired 25% stake in Balcombe.

I do find his change in posting most unusual when the facts are presented.