Member Info for Alan2017

Pboo - what a strange post. And folk were questioning me last year when I said the same issues Angus had to face with SCC (Brockham) will affect the other Weald Players......spooky

https://twitter.com/Alan20171717/status/1073201234260049920

https://twitter.com/Alan20171717/status/1086955354351558656

Scallywag - difference is Tidswell took the company from being private to a PLC to get PI's money therefore relinquishing power.

I think the security guard would have guarded his shares better than Tidswell did lol Hence why out of the 2 Angus employees...I would have the Security guard as the Director.

gkb47 - thanks for the information update.

Yes I note Lucan is also a Director i the same companies, so they have been updated, yet strangely Tidwell has not been removed.

I believe we need a clean break from the past and there is still a link with Tidswell having influence after his Captain America scandal....even when he is not on the BOD. I don't see one of the Brockham security guards being an Angus Director as after all they are just both employees of Angus.

Why is he still a Director?

If someone on here is actually going, then can you ask Lucan why Tidswell is still a Director of 4 registered Angus companies. Tidswell is no longer CEO or on the board. I find it strange that an employee / shareholder can still hold those positions. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC366110 https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC427386/officers https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06975039/officers https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC055329/officers

And guess who has told out of Angus......sigh.

What folk may not appreciate about the incurred indefinitely available tax losses of circa £11 million to carry forward against future taxable income of the subsidiaries is that this additional pot of cash through tax savings will pay for all the wells / sidetracks to be drilled at Brockham, the entire development.

1 year of full production of BRX4Z will pay for the entire Brockham development. The money leaves one pocket and goes back into the other pocket. That's another big plus factor for choosing Angus when comparing Angus and UKOG for investor money.

Angus have 3 wells to surface out of a possible 6. Yes you can use the existing well subsurface infrastructure to drill sidetracks and turn them in to Kimmeridge producers.

The best well to sidetrack would be the BRX3 well, which BP originally drilled and has now become a water injector. Whether they drill out of 9 5/8" casing, drill 8 1/2" hole, run 7" liner before drilling the Kimmeridge with a 6" hole before running liner and complete.

BRX3Z and BRX2X would take approximately 14-21 days each to drill and complete. Angus only pay 65% of the well costs. So it wont be a costly outlay.

Angus will perform the BRX4Z EWT and from those results plan the best location for the sidetrack wells.

So to reiterate the tax savings on every barrel of oil produced during the commercial production test from the historical tax incurred looses of £11 million in effect pays for the entire Angus field development costs.

Angus have 3 wells to surface out of a possible 6. Yes you can use the existing well subsurface infrastructure to drill sidetracks and turn them in to Kimmeridge producers.

The best well to sidetrack would be the BRX3 well, which BP originally drilled and has now become a water injector. Whether they drill out of 9 5/8" casing, drill 8 1/2" hole, run 7" liner before drilling the Kimmeridge with a 6" hole before running liner and complete.

BRX3Z and BRX2X would take approximately 14-21 days each to drill and complete. Angus only pay 65% of the well costs. So it wont be a costly outlay.

Angus will perform the BRX4Z EWT and from those results plan the best location for the sidetrack wells.

Investverysmart - Angus doesn't need more Geologists....even you could spot it. And why would Angus be a STRONG BUY as you always put it when you're suggesting they have to side track....sigh.

Very simple case of running a bridge plug on pipe, setting it and isolating the water zone from the production zone.

Pboo - actually I found that document poorly constructed by somebody who quite clearly doesn't know what they are talking about.

How can you be drilling a well when it is cased off and perforated...looong sigh. How many times do they mention drilling?

Angus still have consent - yes we already knew this.

Strange terminology for water ingress ...flooding?!?! Sigh

And like every oil site whether onshore or offshore ....it has to by law be put back to how it was before.

I found the document very melodramatic ....almost like Ruth Hayhurst had written it herself.

Pboo - well hopefully UKOG investors will use you as a shining example and invest in Angus, considering the SP has been stagnant across the road.

Amazing to think that the Angus SP was 15p in October 2018 and what was the high back in 2017? Oh yes 36p....so that is a great incentive for Weald investors to move their money into Angus and actually make some profit.

I hope you have been telling your fellow investors this and not just keeping it to yourself.

AS12 - another poster with a handful of posts.........and what's with the "demand" and "request"?

I'm assuming if you own 2 companies that you know about lessons learned and learning from your mistakes....Yes?

4 month delay at Lidsey crashing the SP and the Christmas shut down due to not having backup completion equipment.

What does this post say? "Unwrapping the water isolation plugs from the USA" yet their is only 1 plug. Is this another crime against grammar like the RNS with water zone or water zones?!?! Sigh

Tidswell tweet "Unwrapping the water isolation plugs from the USA" states 2 plugs or more....yet he only posts 2 photos of the same plug. I asked him several times last week for photos of the back up....zero communication.

https://twitter.com/JonathanTidswe1/status/1107916096907214849

Strangely that was the biggest complaint about the old board was ignoring PIs questions...even though the new board is comprised of a lot of the old board....

Bigboylee - that did make me chuckle lol

Axebob - sadly its all installed and configured in the vendors workshop, so its not just a case of changing out the rubber. Also the threaded connection can be damaged if you cross thread it as I mentioned before. Standard oilfield practice is to have an exact copy as a back up.

Rule is if its on site you don't need it, but sods law you will if you don't have one as occurred at Lidsey and Brockham causing the shut down.

Joe666 - Tidswell tweet "Unwrapping the water isolation plugs from the USA" states 2 plugs or more....yet he only posts 2 photos of the same plug. I asked him several times last week for photos of the back up....zero communication.

https://twitter.com/JonathanTidswe1/status/1107916096907214849

Bridge plug has a rubber element that when set expands and this creates your isolation barrier. Now that rubber element has to pass through circa 200m of perforations which has jagged metal edges and if it nicks / cuts the element then it can fail immediately or when pressure is applied to it. It could get damaged being lifted to the rig floor or being made up.

That is why it is prudent to have a back up ...and that applies for any critical item that can delay drilling, production or in this case a well test.

Regarding costs....you only pay for it if you use it or damage it. Back up items sit at the site being charged a minimal daily rental rate of £10-£15 a day....yes that cheap and then there is the transportation fee back to the vendor.

*you do know what the share allocation was at the time......

Loot - so you you would be suggesting Tidswell, Knows Properties and the BOD had been planning on taking this private? You do not what the share allocation was at the time and how little Vonk had? So that doesn't make any sense.

HealthyReturns - I recognise your style of writing, but under a different Members name....

Yes you got your 50%...but it wasn't in a week as you said weeks ago.
"there was a water issue which many have acknowledged is an easy fix" Folk are only saying that because I've told them its an easy fix....and you can see it from my early February posts....sigh. And for factually purposes...."there is" not "there was" as the water issue has not been fixed.

The market treated the Brockham news in January with suspicion as other posters have said and this is why the SP is where it is.

All Angus has done is what any oil company does on a day to day basis, but they just don't tweet it. Now I have to reply to your post and If you want to know why the long lead item was found quicker. Tidswell or somebody else after 6 weeks decided to phone companies outside the usual suspects of Halliburton, Baker Oil Tools, Schlumberger and started to speak to the small independent companies in USA and Canada. But why did they wait that long....sigh.

I already have my Angus shares....sadly thats something else you've missed in my posts.

Regarding Twitter - perhaps you can ask Lord Lucan why they have only posted 2 photos of the same bridge plug....where is the back up even though they stated isolation plugs ......plural. Do they have a Primary and a Back Up Bridge plug? You do know this has bitten Angus twice in the past by not having a back up tool?

HealthyReturns - wow since jumping on this board you have certainly been the standard bearer for ramping the SP....and I wish you well as I make more then.

But please stop trying to say you can fast track applications with Government Agencies as along with everything else you have been unaware of.....UKOG has had their local authority meeting delayed by 2 months now, Holmswood was delayed by 11 years and how long did Angus have to wait to carry out the Brockham EWT?

And another misleading statement "Remember also that the HSE paperwork was put in prior to even signing the rig contract. They knew the rig contract was coming." You can have all the permissions in place and then wait months for a rig. Angus didn't put the paperwork in because they knew they had a rig....they put the paperwork in as soon as they had (hopefully) finished compiling the procedures. Sigh.

E_AL - sorry if the 2nd paragraph was a bit vague. Yes Angus must be confident of getting the permission to be signing a rig contract mid April which in theory could be up to circa 20th April

"Now having said that I believe they will issue a 2 part approval which is why Angus has confidently talked about rig contract mid April."

It's all paperwork and detailing how they are going to investigate and isolate the water zone. Thats why I also said

"I hope Angus checked the paperwork a million times before submitting it to the relevant authorities."

Its not a case of Angus telling HSE / OGA what they are going to do and thats that. The HSE may come back and say we don't agree with a certain step of the procedure or they may want additional tests to be carried out which will then be built into the Brockham Remedial Porgramme.

The arrival of equipment could happen in several different sequences:

Sequence A:

Well testing equipment arrives and is positioned behind and to the side of where the rig will be.
Rig then follows with its generators, tanks, mud pumps.
Slickline truck to log the water zone
Possible scraper run across perforations.
Run in and set bridge plug

Sequence B

Rig arrives first with generators, tanks, mud pumps.
Slickline truck to log the water zone
Possible scraper run across perforations.
Run in and set bridge plug

As all of the above is taking place simultaneously the well testing equipment arrives, positioned, rigged up and pressure tested.
Continue with original well testing programme

Mirasol - some folk use that rule of thumb, but there are several factors that affect this making it either higher or lower.

If you drill a vertical well through a 9ft thick oil bearing rock (payzone) and the oil bearing rock is horizontal (aka 90 degrees) then you have physical contact with 9ft of rock. Then you are relying on the permeability of the rock for you to produce from the oil bearing rock in a 360degree direction. So its rather like the garden hose effect where the further you walk away from the tap the lower the water pressure, but in reverse. If permeability is high (imagine each pocket of oil is connected by straws to create a super highway) then you can produce from a deeper zone radially, but if your permeability is low, then you won't produce as much.

Where as you drill a horizontal well, in the case of Balcombe the well was drilled in the Upper Limestone (KL4) staying within the payzone. The slotted linear (pre drilled holes) is 1,600ft, which means there is 1,600ft exposure to the payzone. All that needs to be done is for the EWT paperwork to be approved and then Angus can do exactly the same thing that they are going to do at Brockham.

Having 2 EWT (Brockham and Balcombe) being simultaneously carried out by the end of 2019 is feasible depending on Angus urgency in getting the programme submitted and approved by all authorities. A lot of the information will just be a cut and paste from the Brockham test regarding equipment specifications, rig ups, monitoring, in the event of procedures.

That is why I said before that Balcombe is the jewel in the Angus portfolio and then Brockham.

E_AL - firstly to clarify something that a few posters have used regarding their timelines is a "response" as the HSE stated is not giving you permission, it's just a standard we'll respond to your email, request, question within that time period etc that all companies use.

Now having said that I believe they will issue a 2 part approval which is why Angus has confidently talked about rig contract mid April.

1st part of approval: use of a rig / slickline truck to pinpoint the water zone using logging tools
2nd part of approval: after Angus submitted final subsurface schematic with bridge plug dimensions, serial number, depths (top of bridge plug, element, bottom of bridge plug), isolate water zone.....and then on with the original plan which is just a cut and paste of November 2018.

As I said before I hope Angus checked the paperwork a million times before submitting it to the relevant authorities.

So yes it is feasible for all the permissions to be in place before the rig arrives, except for EA which needs to do a site investigation with all the equipment set up to ensure all secondary bunded areas will prevent spillages.

SCC will be given 7 days notice before the rig arrives, so it would be nice to actually have a positive leak. Maybe Angus will tweet this?