London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

It seems the only posters who can’t read the OGA figures correctly are either swampies, day traders or folk who are protecting their investment in another Weald company. In all cases their sole intent is to muddy the waters. Don’t you find it a coincidence that the board / Twitter suddenly becomes noisy whenever Angus are due some good news. Now why is that?

So what exactly is “Brockham - Annual Average Offtake” Well lets take a look at other examples of the term “Average Annual”

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/523935/response/1277768/attach/5/brockprodconsred.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

Annual average daily traffic, abbreviated AADT, is a measure used primarily in transportation planning, transportation engineering and retail location selection. Traditionally, it is the total volume of vehicle traffic of a highway or road for a year divided by 365 days.

Average annual rainfall for a place is generally calculated by averaging the last 30 years of annual rainfall. Annual rainfall is the sum of daily rainfall, that can be calculated from rain gauge records.

So it’s the daily sum added up over the year and then averaged out. Well that makes sense. But you don’t have the exact same number of cars every day?!?! Loooooong sigh.

So all the posters trying to sow seeds of doubt with Angus can only flow 300bopd is rubbish. The OGA would never shackle an oil company with such a low volume.

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 ballon retain its new squeezed shape (reservoir pressure declined and cannot reinstate the ballots original form).

The testing schedule as set by the OGA gives a specific timeline for the period for production testing, analysing data and producing the results. This is done so companies just don’t well test for ever, by doing so produce as if they had a licence (UKOG) and circumnavigate protocols. The documentation from the OGA is standard and by stating an overall production limit also acts to encourage the Oil Company to be efficient with the test and to progress it to the next stage in an efficient manner . After all its in the national interest to continually replace depleted wells / fields with new ones. I believe folk would not be as concerned with the Angus production test if the same amount of effort had gone in to researching the UKOG documentation. You will find a lot of similarities with constraints.

So yes Angus can flow more than 300bopd in a single day….otherwise why spend the extra rental money on those super large tanks you see at Brockham?!?! Angus will look to exceed the 1,365bopd flow rates observed from HH KL3 and KL4 2016 test.

Continued:

https://www.aggreko.com/en-gb/products/generator-rental/generators/gas-generators/gas-generator-1375-kva

Tests are just that….you adjust your choke depending on your flow, just as you will adjust your well test equipment package to enhance the test…by upgrading equipment capabilities or procedures.

And before someone tries to come back and say that will incur delays….no….modular design makes it easy to swap out or spot on top / next to prior to being hooked up.

So to recap….what are we as Angus investors wanting to see from the Brockham production test? We want to see a bopd rate, which zones are producing and has their been any decline.

Personally I have used the rate of 1,000bopd for expected flow rates during the commercial production test at Brockham. Set yourself a benchmark and then anything above it is a bonus. I've used 1,000bopd in reflection of what HH saw just from the Upper and Lower Kim layer tests in 2016.

It bodes well for an Angus SP rerate, as we are about to test the same formation that has been flowing 5miles down the road as the crow flies, as well as the interbedded shale. A deviated well sees more of the limestone than a vertical well...trigonometry.

The added bonus is that Brockham was drilled specifically as a Kimmeridge producer with the correct hole size / drilling fluid, whereas HH wasn't due to it being an exploration well assessing multiple zones of interest.

That's a very interesting point as I've based my production rates solely on the HH 2016 test and not a standard production well with the correct sized hole and not including the additional the hydrocarbons in the interbedded shale, so Brockham should see better flow rates than the HH 2016 test

Brockam isn't a horizontal well, so I will go for a conservative figure of 1,000bopd.

UKOG (actually Angus did it for them) flow tested their deviated well in both the Upper and Lower Kimmeridge back in 2016

Upper Kim KL4 perforated 88ft observing 901bopd
Lower Kim KL3 perforated 80ft observing 464bopd

So they perforated 168ft and observed 1,365bopd

Now fast forward to 2018 results from 30 days flow test:

Lower Kim KL3 perforated 83ft observing 342bopd (464bopd in 2016. So that’s a 26% decrease.

If we apply the same 26% decrease to the Upper Kim KL4.
Upper Kim KL4 perforated 88ft observing 901bopd in 2016 (estimate 667bopd suing 26% decrease rate).

Add 342 + 667 and that gives you 1,009bopd from solely the 2 Limestone beds. Thats not including the fractured interconnected shale that acts like the pipework for the hydrocarbons. Not bad hey!!

Continued:

Page 21:
“Note although Angus have traded Horse Hill well data they were not provided with detailed well test data. In Brockham we anticipate simultaneous production from both these intervals plus around 140m of further section involving fractured shales and limestones. It is therefore quite feasible that rates in excess of could be sustained. However, in the interests of caution Angus envisage initial production at
until evidence supports a change. Note that the temporary facilities envisaged will have a capacity of up to around but could easily be extended or modified by rental of additional capacity. The rental approach offers rapid flexibility to changing conditions.”

Page 21:
“However, it must be noted that should evidence from regular monitoring of production and downhole production logging suggests that higher rates are sustainable then the production rate may be adjusted up accordingly. The gas production profile is based on Clearly if pressures drop below the bubble point gas rates would increase, but production will be adjusted accordingly.”

Page 24:
“For the proposed Kimmeridge production period new rented equipment will be provided on the site. Renting the equipment is cost effective and enables alterations to be made as production rates change.”

Page 25:
“The current rented equipment being sourced will enable sustained Kimmeridge field production at levels of around (plus low rate Portland production) but with a large margin for uncertainty in case production evidence proves more optimistic.”

Page 26:
“The current plan is to place the rented equipment on site for just under one year, during which time the well performance can be evaluated. If production remains viable new, suitably sized, temporary equipment will be placed for use until the new addendum is considered after 18 months.”

Now I already covered the gas question in a post dated 17th October 2018 titled RE: All that Gas.

The key passage is “Should the gas produced start to exceed the capacity of the generator” No oil company is going to plan for 100% i.e. what you expect is what you get…..you always factor in a contingency….150-200%. So I don’t think we shall see gas volumes anywhere near what is quoted, which means higher oil flow rates. And what if they actually strike it rich with respect to gas….well add another modular gas generator to upgrade your capacity. Simple as that..increase your output 4 fold at 100% gas rate and all for an extra 8dBA of noise.

In the manufacturers own spec sheet they state “Modular unit design allows plant capacity to be easily scaled up or down.” The generator comes preassembled in something very similar to a Maersk sea freight container. Delivered on a flat bed truck and spotted using a crane prior to being hooked up to the well / grid.

https://www.aggreko.com/en-gb/products/generator-rental/generators/gas-generators/gas-generator-375-kva

Continued:

I believe folk would not be as concerned with the Angus production test if the same amount of effort had gone in to researching the UKOG documentation. You will find a lot of similarities with constraints.

So what has the OGA actually said? The FDP can be amended with agreement by OGA which means if initial results are better than expected then procedures / additional equipment can be factored in and they have given an annual production rate of +/- 110,000bbls of oil. Which means you can produce more than the 302bopd as some folk with agendas are trying to infer. 300bopd of oil factors in gas output equivalent to 82% of the generators capability. This is the working efficiently and you don’t want to plan using it at 100% as it will fail. I go into further detail later on regarding generators.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/523935/response/1277768/attach/5/brockprodconsred.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

2. This consent is given on condition that:

(a) any development carried out pursuant to this consent is carried out in accordance with the proposals contained in the Devlopment Plan, as amended from time to time with the agreement of the Oil and Gas Authority.

(b) during each year specified in the Schedule hereto the quantity of petroleum got from the field is not greater than the maximum quantity in respect of that year..”

I see the following document titled Brockham Portland & Kimmeridge Reservoirs Addendum to the Field Development Plan to be very positive. Multiple times it talks about the capability of increasing production rates through additional equipment / procedures. I have highlighted key passages. Sadly Angus didn’t number the pages….looooong sigh.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/523935/response/1277768/attach/4/brockfdpadd%20Redacted.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

Page 11:
“The proposed long-term production of Brockham X4Z with an initial test period and long-term data gathering is intended to answer all the above questions about the extent and degree of communication of the natural fracture system through both the limestones and the shales.”

Page 12
“A short-term test or even an extended well test may not answer these questions. Therefore, the operator considers it appropriate to move straight into production in these zones but will subject the production to more comprehensive monitoring as the performance of the well will add greatly to the understanding of the production mechanism in this formation.”

Ok lets get to the nitty gritty and put this latest waffle to bed….the Field Development Plan is a working dynamic model. Now why is it a model? Because you need to open the taps and observe over an extended period of time what the reservoir can physically achieve. It’s the same process as developing a new prototype car, aircraft, generator, pump….the list got on. You have to find the sweet spot which produces a balance of good flow rates without harming the life span of the reservoir. Some companies notoriously in the States will just open the taps fully to achieve astronomical rates to impress the market. Well that’s lovely if you’re a day trader, but as a long term investor you’ve most likely seen your 20 year well turn into a 2-3 year well.

Now as I’ve said before, it’s very unusual to have two oil companies well testing the same formation 5 miles apart as the crow flies. I would be more hesitant guesstimate bopd, but Angus is in the envious position of having UKOG test their HH well right next door. It’s the equivalent of test driving a car at the HH showroom and then buying it at the Angus showroom.

What is the difference between Brockham and HH?

Brockham is deviated where as HH isn’t.
Brockham has more exposure to the limestone than HH.
Brockham was drilled as a Kimmeridge producer with the correct sized hole for optimum production. HH drilled through Kimmeridge section with much larger hole due to well design assessing deeper reservoirs beneath it.
Brockham drilled with correct drilling fluid for producing from Kimmeridge. HH used wrong drilling fluid as deeper reservoirs were the objective.

Now the reason Angus have to use a gas to wire generator is because Brockham has a Production Licence where as HH is an exploration well without the necessary infrastructure due to not having a Production licence….hence UKOG using a flare.

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 ballon retain its new squeezed shape (reservoir pressure declined and cannot reinstate the ballots original form).

The testing schedule as set by the OGA gives a specific timeline for the period for production testing, analysing data and producing the results. This is done so companies just don’t well test for ever, by doing so produce as if they had a licence (UKOG) and circumnavigate protocols. The documentation from the OGA is standard and by stating a production limit also acts to encourage the Oil Company to be efficient with the test and to progress it to the next stage. After all its in the national interest to continually replace depleted wells / fields with new ones.

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for Alan2017

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)