Member Info for Alan2017

11 Oct 17 Cont

Continued

“Rectifying poor cement bonding in a wellbore is standard oilfield practice and is carried out by squeezing further fresh cement slurry through new or existing perforations in the well's heavy-gauge steel casing. Consequently, following the removal of the current BB-1z well completion assembly, the Company plans to carry out a short sequence of cement-squeezes through the 7-inch casing to rectify sections of the reservoir zone's cement-bond.”

You want uniform cement in between the liner and open hole. A good cement bond means there is less chance of your perforations clogging up and therefore reducing your flow rate. This would have been shown straight away during the wireline electric logging before they ran the completion string / well testing phase. You get a 360degree view for the entire reservoir section. Solid cement appears as a dark brown and water appears as blue. Where it is white shows channeling. As you circulate the flow tends to corkscrew around the pipe as it travels back up to surface.this appears as diagonal white lines.

https://www.spec2000.net/07-casinginsplog.htm

The ideal situation is you you drill a hole through plasterboard (casing) which is laid over a granite wall (cement) before brick (formation).

If you have a cavity wall with foam bead insulation then when you drill the hole the beads block up the hole..and this is what has happened at BB. The poor cement has disintegrated due to being exposed to formation pressure and plugged up the holes (perforations) made in the 7 liner resulting in no / poor flow.

In hindsight..this should have been rectified before moving on to the completion / stimulation / well testing phases as it has come back to bite them big time. This information would have been known while the logging tools were making the pass across the reservoir section (if they actually paid for the service in the first place). Remember Deepwater Horizon and how all those guys wearing blue coveralls jumped on the helicopter at the start of the movie (Schlumberger CBL Cement Bond Log).

Lets wish UKOG all the best as it will affect Angus, we are interlinked and very soon we want to be doing the same thing at Brockham. Follow good Oilfield Drilling Practices, don’t cut corners and hopefully luck is on your side.

And the same rules also apply to Angus BOD when it comes to decision making both in the board room and in the field.

11 oct 17.

Firstly it does Angus investors no favours gloating about our neighbours current predicament Each company drilling in the Weald basin is having to fight tooth and nail to deliver what we all hope to be a lot of oil and intern change a lot of investors lives. It only takes one piece of bad luck or a human mistake to alter a company fortune. Just remember that.

Figures of 6-8 million are way off the mark..you wont need a lot of cement lucky if it costs 20,000 for the product. Daily rig rate / crew costs are not astronomical.

From what I have read in the latest UKOG RNS, it is a simple case of a bad cement job which will require a simple cement squeeze prior to cleaning out the well and stimulating the well with acid.

The UKOG RNS on 10th August gave the reasons for the sidetrack Following the month-long coring and electric logging programme it became apparent that the duration and difficulty of coring such highly-fractured rocks in an inclined well led to potential plugging of some intensely fractured Kimmeridge zones likely jeopardising flow test performance. Sections of the overlying Purbeck also exhibited washout zones making both optimal casing-setting in the full 8.5-inch open hole section and resultant Kimmeridge well completion problematic. Using lessons learnt from BB-1, the short-duration sidetrack was drilled using the same non-toxic drilling fluid but with a lower density and higher viscosity mixture to minimise reservoir formation damage via possible plugging of oil-filled fractures. The sidetrack's in-gauge 8.5-inch borehole was cased-off successfully without problemand will now be completed for flow testing.

Now it is not mentioned in an RNS, but I am sure I read somewhere that they had issues running the 7liner for the sidetrack well and needed to perform a cement squeeze as they were unable to circulate and perform a cement job conventionally (please update this if this is incorrect).

Now regardless of how they did the cement job, it is obviously not a very good one.

The decision to workover the well follows receipt of two independent cement-bond analyses by Premier Oilfield Laboratories in Houston, USA and Xodus in the UK.These analyses, together with the Company's own internal evaluation, demonstrate that the quality of the cement-bond over some of the reservoir zones within the current BB-1z well is less than optimal. The findings conclude that, due to the cement-bond condition over segments of the reservoir section, the current completion programme has not effectively connected the wellbore to much of the best open natural fractures. Therefore, the testing to date has not properly evaluated the full flow potential of the overall Kimmeridge reservoir sequence.

Regarding BB...I'll post what I posted back on 21st February 2018 when the UKOG SP took a massive hit and also my 11 October 2017 on Angus BB explaining why BB was not a success...not because of the formation, but because of the management decisions. Use Good Drilling Practices / Lessons Learned and BB will be a success.

It is a pity that some folk are gloating over the current status of UKOG….after all it has always had an effect on ANGS share price whether positive or negative. So doesn’t make sense to shoot yourself in the financial foot?

This is aimed as a recap with regards to the pitfalls of taking short cuts while drilling, but also gives some hope to the UKOG investors with regards long term SP. I looked back at my posts from last year while UKOG were drilling both the original well and the subsequent sidetrack / liner / cement jobs.

It was very plain that the well (as in the surrounding reservoir) was damaged before they even ran the completions. By getting too greedy taking 1 month to core / run wireline, the open hole was in a poor shape and this was proven by the liner either not being able to reach bottom and / or getting temporarily stuck = pressure builds up below stuck point and charges formation with fluid / additives / rock cuttings.

Side track didn’t fair too well either with the same problem = unable to perform cement job after liner packed off (unable to circulate to surface).

Rushing to carry out flow tests without rectifying the poor cement job (wireline logs would have told you this in real time) smacks of amateurism.

Commenced flow testing and perforations blocked.

I will post the previous posts as they are relevant and explain the mistakes made.

Now if UKOG drill a sidetrack away from the damaged area with the correct mud system, good drilling practices then I’m sure they will see much better results. All the best.

Now I don't have time to edit this historical post, but this was posted on UKOG I think in February 2018 when their share price tanked to give them some encouragement with the long term future of BB.

UKOG drilled the 2 attempts horribly snd thats why they had issues.

So to try and compare BB to Brockham is the work of fantasists.

I'm sorry, but your post shows you have no oilfield background especially in the well testing field.

I shall post in a separate thread what caused BB to be a failure twice.

As I say it was the way UKOG drilled it and not the formation itself.

I'm voting Vonk

Scallywag - Ok...here goes.

The well has a column of fluid that is weighted up with additives to exert a stronger force than the force being applied by the formation. The pressure being applied by the column of fluid is called Hydrostatic Pressure.

Imagine a spring valve on the bottom of the well and the Hydrostatic pressure is keeping the spring compressed. Nitrogen is pumped into the well to displace the fluid and reduce the level of the fluid. As the fluid level drops, so too does the hydrostatic pressure. When most of the fluid in the well has been displaced to the surface and replaced by nitrogen then the hydrostatic pressure has been reduced enough to relax that spring and open the valve.

That is the equivalent of reducing the force exerted by the well contents and the formation pressure now exceeds the well pressure. At this point the hydrocarbons take the path of least resistance and enter the well and up the production tubing via the perforations.

So yes this is why you are seeing so much nitrogen being used.

This is a very typical standard well test.

Tony - cameras are the past. Drones are the future.

DHC - no it's not 1 week. The process for brining the well out of suspension only commenced on Monday 7th January. Then after that they would have moved on to the clean up phase after the rig was rigged down.

And how many well tests have you done? Zero
Which means you have zero experience in well testing....well actually zero experience in the oil industry. That needs to be made known as your posts are very misleading.

Pboo - why have you suddenly started a new thread?

I'm not like these fools who have their entire public lives on the internet. Plus an idiot on Twitter was asking people to DM him with my real name so he could attack me. Sigh

Nad here is the original post you were replying to, Subject title Calmez Vous

Pboo - sounds like you're not 100% confident of the RNS figures? Any particular reason?

You've said you're an Angus investor which means you don't think its a duster. Its very strange that you question the one oil expert who regularly posts on this board when your background has zero oilfield experience.

The usual UKOG disinformation is that mother nature new the postcodes millions of years ago when depositing what eventually became the Kimmerdge Formation. Thats just rubbish. All the derampers who have investments in UKOG are basically saying every single one of their other assets is a duster. Is that what you are saying?

You have also forgotten that there is something called a crystal ball...which in the oil industry is called LWD tools. With can see the hydrocarbons, porosity and permeability of the reservoir. I've been on jobs that after the logs have been analysed that the well test has been canceled. The equipment has never reached the rig. Angus also ran the Weatherford Ultra Wave tool (the first time its been run in Europe) to further confirm the hydrocarbons / fracture system.
The cuttings that came back to surface were studied by Geologists and Geophysicists to determine high organic content, as well as any fluorescence in the cutting du to hydrocarbons. The drilling fluid coming back up to surface is analysed for gas shows.

So yes factor all these positive indicators and coupled with the fact that HH has flowed from the Kimmeridge with an oversized hole, wrong drilling fluid additives and hole angle......then it looks very good for Angus

Ismaliq - I am the same. Brockhams' Kimmeridge exposure was what attracted me to Angus. Certainly not Tidswell who has a bad reputation in the oil industry.

Tidswell is employed:

to make sure they drill from the correct well
abide by local / government agency rules
ensure paperwork is accurate and submitted on time
ensure critical spares are on the shelf to prevent shutting down production
producing the oil on schedule

Tidswell report card is 0/10 lol

Tidswell didn't go to one liaison meeting with locals or do the Brockham council meeting.
Also he was supposed to do an Investor Conference last year and left house before.

So whats his role again?!?! Guys shows no interest in Angus operations except for taking the money.

Rocky - just to clarify we aren't drilling....well testing ;)

it will be nice to have a board without the blatant derampers / shorters

Pboo - sounds like you're not 100% confident of the RNS figures? Any particular reason?

You've said you're an Angus investor which means you don't think its a duster. Its very strange that you question the one oil expert who regularly posts on this board when your background has zero oilfield experience.

The usual UKOG disinformation is that mother nature new the postcodes millions of years ago when depositing what eventually became the Kimmerdge Formation. Thats just rubbish. All the derampers who have investments in UKOG are basically saying every single one of their other assets is a duster. Is that what you are saying?

You have also forgotten that there is something called a crystal ball...which in the oil industry is called LWD tools. With can see the hydrocarbons, porosity and permeability of the reservoir. I've been on jobs that after the logs have been analysed that the well test has been canceled. The equipment has never reached the rig. Angus also ran the Weatherford Ultra Wave tool (the first time its been run in Europe) to further confirm the hydrocarbons / fracture system.
The cuttings that came back to surface were studied by Geologists and Geophysicists to determine high organic content, as well as any fluorescence in the cutting du to hydrocarbons. The drilling fluid coming back up to surface is analysed for gas shows.

So yes factor all these positive indicators and coupled with the fact that HH has flowed from the Kimmeridge with an oversized hole, wrong drilling fluid additives and hole angle......then it looks very good for Angus

gpmh1 -

UKOG screwed up drilling BB twice and each time they packed off the liner casing them to pressure up the formation and seal the fractures with a combination of a pressure shock and pumping lost circulation material to stop heavy mud losses. Angus drilled Brockham by the book, on time and I must say text book. HH Kimmeridge well test 5 miles as the crow flies from Brockham has flowed both in 2016 and 2018. That for me is the litmus test and a very good indicator that Brockham will flow. If you had a bunch of offset wells circled around Brockham and they were all dusters then i would not be confident.

Angus din't perforate the well. They get in a specialist company which is their bread and butter. It's the specialist companies tools that have been tested and used in the field in different environments, completion fluid for many many runs. Angus would have chosen them for their reliability and well performance. Their specialist Perforation Engineers would be running the show under Chris Clays observation.
200m perforation is not big perforation job
Perf guns are deigned to piece the liner...thats the whole point of them and no you cannot overcharge them.

It's pointless talking about a hypothetical issue with the well. I do note you have sold your Angus shares.

Tidswell is employed:

to make sure they drill from the correct well
abide by local / government agency rules
ensure paperwork is accurate and submitted on time
ensure critical spares are on the shelf to prevent shutting down production
producing the oil on schedule

Tidswell report card is 0/10 lol

Tidswell didn't go to one liaison meeting with locals or do the Brockham council meeting.
Also he was supposed to do an Investor Conference last year and left house before.

So whats his role again?!?! Guys shows no interest in Angus operations except for taking the money.

Pboo - sigh.......I said no issues. It's very obvious when things are not going to plan by the level of activity, new equipment on site etc. With my experience I can tell straight away. Whereas you have to ask me questions. That's a truth. Again....no issues. These things take time and patience, unless folk are trying to short or get in at a cheaper price.

I've always posted facts, unless you're telling me UKOG lied about the HH 2016 flow rates?!?!

Pboo - it must seem foreign to you not having any oilfield experience, but I assessed all the evidence in the photos and videos. And what I have seen is everything you would do to clean up a well and get it to flow. I call a spade a spade.

I note by your negative comments both on here and on Twitter that you must have sold up. It's like a change of seasons.

Continued:

As I say I feel much more confident with Chris Clay being in charge for well testing after reading his packed CV (there is a post of mine from several days ago going into more detail regarding Chris Clay titled Experienced Guy at Helm for testing Friday 09:01).

You do not produce 24/7 during any type of well test. You want to see how the reservoir responds to periods of flow and subsequent periods of the well being shut in. Rather like squeezing a ballon, does it return to its previous shape (reservoir pressure builds up again to before test) or does the balloon retain its new squeezed shape (reservoir pressure declined and cannot reinstate the balloons original form).

We may get a similar RNS to Balcombe where Angus notified the market that Hydrocarbons were at surface. But I don’t expect a detailed RNS until possibly the end of January. If it happens before then fantastic, but I much prefer Angus to be focussed on getting the best production results for its investors.

And what about tanker sightings / numbers? Again I’m not focussed on the numbers. What investors should be focused on is the optimised flow rates with no to very little decline rate from the start of the test to the end. That is the key number that investors should be looking for along with the pressure

I first posted this on Thursday at 05:56 titled “What’s on the Brockham Menu?” It is still very relevant. I see the usual suspects post incessantly about there must be problems at Angus and comparing it to BB. Loooooooong sigh. There is no issue at Brockam.

Brockham is nothing like UKOG BB well. UKOG broke most of the Good Oilfield Drilling Practices drilling BB and when trying to take short cuts or get too greedy with an over adventurous coring / logging program. They got their fingers well and truly jammed in the cookie jar. And would you believe it? They did it a second time when they drilled the sidetrack. What they did when they packed off the liner on both occasions is the equivalent of setting off a bomb downhole and sealing all the fractures around the well bore. Result….zero production.

Now its strange how the deramper talks about BB being a positive asset on the UKOG board, yet you wouldn’t touch it on the Angus board? lol Why did BB go wrong? Pilot error as in Sanderson and co didn’t get the basics right.

His complaints are the equivalent of ordering food at a fancy restaurant and immediately complaining about how much time its taking to prepare and cook the food.

Now for the repost:

Firstly patience is required from PIs. We live in an age where folk expect things immediately and constantly fed updates through phones, tablets, laptops, watches via social media. Yes Angus PR is rather sloppy and can certainly be improved. But, I would rather invest in a company that does things the right way and takes it time to get optimised flow rates than being having a sleek PR programme with no production. We aren’t going to get daily updates, so it’s best to know this otherwise you’re just setting yourself up for daily disappointment.

The expression “turn on the taps” is an oilfield expression for the well doesn’t need to be drilled first, not that it is that simple to start producing. There are several important steps before you see hydrocarbons at surface.

The well is opened up (from being shut in, valves are opened so there is now communication between the reservoir and the surface)

A build up period or clean up period of 48hrs for a standard well and I’m sure longer for the Brockham well. Why do you do this? So you don’t shock the reservoir and seal up your perforations and / or fractures. What you will produce first is fluid whilst drilling / completing the well which has seeped in to the formation. What goes in must come out ethos. Whilst you drill the well you keep a cumulative record of fluid loss into the reservoir because when it comes to producing from the same reservoir you have a rough estimate of how many barrels it will take to see hydrocarbons at surface.

The flow rate will be constantly monitored and the choke adjusted. This will go on for days, possibly weeks. It all depends on what the Angus guys observe the reservoir is telling them.