Member Info for Alan2017

ChasPB - the decision document is dated 22nd November 2018

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/759050/EPR-BL9763IN_-_Brockham_decision_document_FINAL_for_issue.pdf

penceofpurpose - Your comments are becoming stranger and stranger. The EA is a Government body that all businesses have to work to their standard as set out by law. You cannot pick and choose which rules you want to follow.

Angus Energy is a PLC company and has a duty to its share holders. Do they have qualified and competent personal in every position. Well obviously not.

Do you even know what the job responsibilities are for an Asset Manager? Obviously not as one look at his CV shows he doesn’t have even one skill required from a similar job. Not a single one…which is quite shocking. After all, he is being paid a salary and did he receive shares? For doing exactly what? As the EA have shown, procedures are lacking at the most basic level of running the site. How do you not know how to bleed off pressure from the well which you can teach somebody in 60 seconds?

I have reviewed the evidence where Angus have shortcomings (I guess you didn’t read my previous posts? Sigh). And I also said what needs to be done to get those 3 preconditions signed off in a matter of days (Angus being proactive).

To suggest that the Angus forms have been lying on the EA desk is farcical. The EA made repeated requests for information which was not furnished by Angus.

The EA works within a specific model to certain standards. Follow their guidelines and you don’t have any major issues (of course there are some minor issues, but thats just window dressing). Don’t work with them and then it becomes problematic. I’m surprised the various points were not resolved quicker considering Tidswell has plenty of time on his hands.

These preconditions could have been resolved at the beginning of the year and we wouldn’t be discussing them now.

As I have said many times before, praise the BOD when it is due and question them when its not. Their paperwork is sloppy at times as shown by the relationship with OGA, Councils and EA. It’s a shame they didn’t award themselves shares once Brockham had started to flow.

As I said before this won't affect the mobilisation or rig up.

Penceofpurpose - Oil companies have to work to the standards set by the EA so you writing "Everything you have written assumes the EA has been flawless" what you wrote doesn't make any sense what so ever.

Angus needs to satisfy they meet all the criteria both physically at the site and through their code of practice.

Do Angus meet all the requirements as per the EA document. No as there are 3 pre conditions that have to be met. Can those 3 pre conditions be easily met....very much so. Does this happen with other oil companies that stipulations have to be met first, yes. Only difference is Angus seems to be making this a habit of doing things last minute.

With regards to the Asset Managers previous experience. Yes it is quite damming as this is the person who runs the site. You have somebody who only has experience on the drilling side as a Geologist now running oil sites and getting them to EA standards. The EA pointed out that he doesn't know how to take well pressures. This is his bread and butter and judging by the EA report, Angus have been asked multiple tines for answers which have not been forthcoming.

To recap the story...Angus needs to work with the modern EA permit.

Sorry guys, but I do have a life so I’m not attached to this account 24/7. But thanks Willow for being concerned lol

So breaking down the EA decision document as I didn’t bother to read DOD slanted report.

I’m surprised that Angus haven’t furnished the EA with the relevant information as they should have it all to hand. Just a case of collating it and attaching it to an email. I must say one thing that infuriates me about Angus is their poor due diligence and paperwork. Hence why I spoke about the zero qualified Asset Manager….who guess what…has to deal with the EA. Emply somebody who knows what they are actually doing and you don’t have this minor headaches.

Regarding the 3 preconditioned orders:

PO-01 regarding gas emissions. Angus should have all the information supplied by the supplier Agreko for the gas to wire generator. When you tender for a contract you submit to the oil company the operating instructions, maintenance schedules, specification sheet and in this gas all the tests regarding gas emissions.

It would seem they need to update their H1 air emission report which does not include the new gas to wire generator and still uses the BAT flare. Only known this for about a year…sigh.

Coupled with expectant gas rates during the test and all you need to do is to attach that to the email. Job done.

PO-02 and PO-03 regarding acid wash and hot oil wash is connected to ground water issues.

Now here is where I don’t like Angus way of doing paperwork. When Angus acquired Brockham the paperwork was not very good. What they should have done first (a requirement) and didn’t do was to carry out CBL Cement Bond Logs on each well to determine the integrity of the wells i.e.. no leaks and cement behind in the casing in good condition and providing a seal. If they had done that then they would have firstly never drilled from the wrong well and had all these headaches and secondly this would have shown the EA that the wells were 100% sealed and no issues of groundwater contamination.

All you need to do is get a slickline unit to log both wells which will take a day and then give the EA the logs. Also have to provide some volumes of acid / hot oil you except to pump. Everything these days is captured in spreadsheets from emissions, waste, liquids. You can’t just leave a box empty.

The CBL log will also mean that Angus can continue to inject water as that answers the EA question.

The permit was issued on 22nd November, but at what stage are Angus at at clarifying the 3 main points. I would expect this to be finalised within 2-3 days.

This doesn’t affect the mobilisation and rig up of the well test package.

Interested to see what the site looks like from Gifted Genies’ drone footage this week.

Sorry guys, but I do have a life so I’m not attached to this account 24/7. But thanks Willow for being concerned lol

So breaking down the EA decision document as I didn’t bother to read DOD slanted report.

I’m surprised that Angus haven’t furnished the EA with the relevant information as they should have it all to hand. Just a case of collating it and attaching it to an email. I must say one thing that infuriates me about Angus is their poor due diligence and paperwork. Hence why I spoke about the zero qualified Asset Manager….who guess what…has to deal with the EA. Emply somebody who knows what they are actually doing and you don’t have this minor headaches.

Regarding the 3 preconditioned orders:

PO-01 regarding gas emissions. Angus should have all the information supplied by the supplier Agreko for the gas to wire generator. When you tender for a contract you submit to the oil company the operating instructions, maintenance schedules, specification sheet and in this gas all the tests regarding gas emissions.

It would seem they need to update their H1 air emission report which does not include the new gas to wire generator and still uses the BAT flare. Only known this for about a year…sigh.

Coupled with expectant gas rates during the test and all you need to do is to attach that to the email. Job done.

PO-02 and PO-03 regarding acid wash and hot oil wash is connected to ground water issues.

Now here is where I don’t like Angus way of doing paperwork. When Angus acquired Brockham the paperwork was not very good. What they should have done first (a requirement) and didn’t do was to carry out CBL Cement Bond Logs on each well to determine the integrity of the wells i.e.. no leaks and cement behind in the casing in good condition and providing a seal. If they had done that then they would have firstly never drilled from the wrong well and had all these headaches and secondly this would have shown the EA that the wells were 100% sealed and no issues of groundwater contamination.

All you need to do is get a slickline unit to log both wells which will take a day and then give the EA the logs. Also have to provide some volumes of acid / hot oil you except to pump. Everything these days is captured in spreadsheets from emissions, waste, liquids. You can’t just leave a box empty.

The CBL log will also mean that Angus can continue to inject water as that answers the EA question.

The permit was issued on 22nd November, but at what stage are Angus at at clarifying the 3 main points. I would expect this to be finalised within 2-3 days.

This doesn’t affect the mobilisation and rig up of the well test package.

Interested to see what the site looks like from Gifted Genies’ drone footage this week.

Maybe if Adam goes there, Fool will suddenly start seeing all these trucks going past lol

Scallywag - I haven't changed my writing style and especially when I think there are a number of derampers on the board this morning.

You can't change the past Scally.....if folk had known after drilling Brockham that it would take so long ..then yes you would have sold out at 38 pence....but I guess you didn't? Along with me.

If you can't hold your breath that long..then sell up and all the best for your investments....as I said folk who wanted to make a quick buck in MATD before jumping back here for instance will now be burnt.

Chambers - and now you choose to complain when equipment is due to arrive this week. How odd.

Chambers - so why hold shares in Angus then? You're obviously very impatient. Invest in MATD.....oh wait...that was a duster.

Chambers - you must have had a terrible weekend lol

Only Day Traders would be upset...long term holders can see further than 2 weeks.

Chambers - if somebody tells me in the next 2 weeks, but definitely before Christmas then thats the delivery time scale. Everyone heard the same interview and was party to the same information.

Brockham was drilled in January 2017....so I honestly don't know why folk are dedication so much time on here for a matter of days...

Equipment has already started to arrive and this week should see a big difference to how the site previously looked. With perforations as early as 10th December. Thats great news to me.

RiskReepReward - its the same. Angus are the only ones to being doing a commercial production test. Volumes will not change for a name.

Scallywag - why are we waiting on UKOG to raise our SP? We drilled Brockham in January 2017 and all of a sudden there seem to be posts from various folk getting impatient.

Why don't you guys just wait for the drone footage from Gifted Genie. If you remember Angus stuck to their Balcombe dates to the letter. Folk were not complaining then, Vonk said definitely before Christmas.

I would say we could be perforated circa 10th December. I will have a better feel for where we stand after seeing the footage. All the best.

Chambers - yes Angus have the cash from the placement. They down issue an RNS to say its happened today, but you can see the volume of shares quoted in the RNS tallys with the total shares as quoted on Angus website

http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/18.11.21-Angus-RNS-result-of-GM.pdf
http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/investors/share-structure-significant-shareholders/

OGA would be just dotting the i's and crossing the t's as everything else should have been covered.

We should see a big change this week to the site if more equipment has been arriving since Saturday at the earliest

Chambers - doesn't mean you get same day equipment rental.

Obviously the placing finances has been the factor in delaying things. Interested to see what the current status of the site is.

Actually there is no interview. All they have done is repost the Angus Energy Brockham Oilfield FAQ's which have been there for some time now. It's been taken word for word.

http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/what-we-do/brockham-oil-field-faqs/
https://www.share-talk.com/angus-energy-to-begin-flow-tests-at-brockham-oil-field/

As for Peter Eadsforth...well he isn't qualified as an Asset Manager, let alone anything to do with the production side of the oil industry.

In fact his only experience is a a Wellsite Geologist who analyses the drilled cuttings that come to surface whilst drilling.

It does make me chuckle when somebody writes on Twitter saying he is a "Great chap who knows his stuff, have met him quite a few times". Well actually he has zero experience in anything downstream (Production), you just have to check out his LinkedIn page to see that. Of course it helps if you work in the oil industry as you can then recognise the qualified folk from friends of the BOD.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/peter-eadsforth-6797833/

Now normally that would make me uneasy having an incompetent person in an important position, but considering he is just a glorified security guard who turns some valves and fills up tankers, then its not too bad. If and when we do start getting multiple wells and 1,000's bopd then he is certainly unfit for what the job entails. I am also assuming he has been given free shares, which to be honest anyone on here could do. And that part does not sit well with me.Now you realise how BB could be drilled so badly if you have friends working of the company instead of the best person for the job.

Now does this affect the potential of Brockham and Angus SP. Of course not, not one little bit. I invested in Angus for the potential of Brockham, not for Lidsey and certainly not on the expertise of the Asset Manager.

I am looking forward to seeing some drone footage this week from Gifted Genie to see the current status of the Brockham site.

All the best to genuine Angus Investors.

rxdav / presneill31 - I would say yes always be cautious when it comes to the expectant results, but what is in fact rather unusual in the oil industry is to have two tests ongoing on a new formation literally 5 miles from each other as the crow flies.

So we have see the Kimmeridge has flowed at:

HH =Yes
Balcombe = Yes
Lidsey = Yes

Now for Brockham (5 miles as the crow flies from HH).

Personally I have used the rate of 1,000bopd. 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 on the HH 2016 test and not a standard production well with the correct sized hole, as well as adding 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 perforated 88ft observing 901bopd
Lower Kim perforated 80ft observing 464bopd

So they perforated 168ft and observed 1,365bopd

Angus are perforating 200m or 656ft of Kimmeridge.
That is 4 times what UKOG did.”

Vonk says at 6min 44secs
“Brockham is a carbon copy of HH. Brockham is drilled as a Kimmeridge Producer. HH was never drilled as a Kimmeridge producer. Hole is too big and used the wrong drilling fluid to get the best out of the reservoir”

http://www.lse.co.uk/media/exclusive-balcombe-test-boost-for-angus-energy-as-oil-flows.html

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.

JA51 - so you've just contradicted yourself by stating "It may be on a separate issue".....which actually means I really just want to write something completely off topic.

Again...why are you on this board for Angus Energy when you are not invested in Angus? Simple question which you have always ignored.

Folk are or will get tired of you attempts to be disruptive on this board. I am very surprised Admin hasn't had a deluge of your posts being reported...or maybe they have?

Ja51 - that is regarding seismic events...which has absolutely nothing to do with my explanation regarding a pressure drop due to a well 5 miles away.

Why are you on this board if you are not invested in Angus?

B2HS2L - sorry, but thats out of my pay scale. Once the rig up is complete then Brockham will move into 24/7 operations.