Member Info for Alan2017

Oiliest - very interested to see the results from Balcombe

Pboo - you do not drill a 12 1/4" hole and run 9 5/8" casing for a production well. Very simple thing to remember. HH well was designed to evaluate deeper formations below the Kimmeridge hence why HH does not have either a 8 1/2" hole or 6" hole with respective liners. The mud additives used were reservoir unfriendly while drilling the HH Kimmeridge...you certainly don't use mica in a reservoir. Again...what you should be seeing is the positives of drilling a dedicated Kimmeridge producer with the right well design and mud properties......why are you unable to see that?

Brockham isn't a horizontal well......sigh. How else could it perforate 200m / 656ft of the Upper and Lower Kimmeridge at the same time with interbedded shale? You are again mistaken...perhaps you are confusing the Upper Kim horizontal well at Balcombe? Simple case of trigonmetry.

That is why this is great news for Brockham as it has been designed and executed as a Kimmeridge production well with the correct hole size et al. Flow rates should be higher, but I will still stick to my conservative 1,000bopd of the test. Anything else is a bonus.

News from the Balcombes' 2 month shut in results should be coming very soon as well. Well was shut in on 2nd October, so we should see a busy first week in December with an update from Balcombe and possibly the rig up completed at Brockham.

A nice double boost for the SP.

Well as I did try and explain to certain folk and SS pointed out during the interview that HH was not drilled to be a Kimmeridge producing well with the wrong size hole, well angle and drilling mud additives used. Rather seeing it as positive news for drilling a sidetrack instead the usual blanket posts stating you're wrong. Loooong sigh

This is great news for Brockham as it has been designed and executed as a Kimmeridge production well with the correct hole size et al. Flow rates should be higher, but I will still stick to my conservative 1,000bopd of the test. Anything else is a bonus.

All the best to genuine Angus investors.

Chambers - sadly this has been at least the 6th posting thread to be deleted by....well you can guess whom judging by which posts are being deleted.

I would just save any valuable posts you may want to repost if the UKOGOilers deem they don't like it ...or Rodders responds to your post. Might need a canon ball for him (Master and Commander style lol).

Baits - the last drone footage showed a lot of offshore containers which could be used to store chemicals, well testing ironwork, used as mini workshops, spares for possible rig etc. These items don't cost anything except for the mobilisation of a truck. Also it prevents the crane / top loader being tied up when the larger pieces of equipment arrive.

The scaffolding has certainly expanded in size around the tanks....and anything else that has arrived or been set up we shall just have to wait until GG flies his drone.

Baits - interested to see Gifted Genies drone footage when he visits Brockham next week...then i'll have a better picture of how far Angus have progressed with the rig up.

So the meeting is at 11am on 21st...so can't see it lasting more than 1 - 1/2 hours then an RNS similar to a AGM RNS issued later that day

http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Result-of-AGM-29-03-2018.pdf

On 22nd shares become effective no later than 8am with RNS issued.

OGA requirements satisfied and Angus given the green light on 22nd to continue rig up.

Wagon trains continue to roll in on 22nd or subsequent days (half working day on Saturday and Sunday no deliveries allowed).

I would say perforate on or around the 10th December.

Just amazing how many posts have been deleted today....what could the UKOGOilers dislike so much?

Gifted Genie - thanks for the heads up about visiting Brockham site week...I will be very interested to actually see unbiased footage within the site boundary and at what stage of the rig up Angus are at.

Financial folk can explain this better, but isn't it the case that the market always factors in the price beforehand and institutional investors don't buy for a quick profit...they are long term investors.

So SP already reflects the 9p placement and we are just waiting for the formality of the vote going through, RNS / money issued, OGA satisfied and then more wagon trains of equipment.

Wasit - I believe 1,600ft of that was slotted at Balcombe, but still very healthy. They just need to install large diameter production tubing to prevent the slugging and then we are aiming for closer to 3,000bopd.

DSmith57 - just looked at your posting history and I note every post regardless of company is very dramatic and always negative.

I suggest you write to SS / UKOG for an explanation of their RNS.

Loooooong sigh....

allthatguff - SS background is Geology...not drilling. And no I'm afraid it was a cardinal sin leaving the Kimmeridge exposed for up to 1 month. Rookie error.

Brockham has already been drilled, without issue. BB was set up to fail which is a dam shame as it hit Angus SP through association.

Brockham is 4.97 miles as the crow flies from HH, so the Kimmeridge has been proven to flow there as well as Balcombe. Difference is Brockahm has been drilled specifically as a Kimmeridge producer, with the right hole size and drilling fluid. Exciting times for Angus.

allthatguff - BB was poorly drilled twice due to not using Good Oilfield Drilling Practices. Product is fine (Kimmeridge) just the Brand was damaged (BB poor drilling). They just need to drill a further sidetrack and execute it correctly from start to finish.

Check out my historical posts...on a PC just click on my profile name and go to Page 21 of my posts. There are 4 sequential posts dated 21st September 2017 with subject title "Re Commercial" It is self explanatory.

Imac1 - No worries.

I'll repost another 6th November post...but one thing I'll expand upon is the flow rates. I've taken UKOG 2016 flow rates from solely the Upper and Lower Kim whereas Angus will be perforating the large interbedded mudstone that is fractured and both UKOG / Angus believe connects the KL3 to the KL4. That will have a certain volume of hyrdcarbons not accounted in my 1,000bopd.
Also the fact I am taking UKOG flow rates from a well not specifically drilled to produce from the Kimmeridge.

I like to have a banker volume and anything else is a lovely bonus...hence I am using 1,000bopd as explained below:

"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, 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."

Propainter - only folk who know sit in the Angus Ivory Tower....nobody on this board has a clue.

James - it fell not because of the SCC relationship ...but because of the Lidsey RNS issued exactly this time last year....16th November 2017. A date I will never forget....perhaps UKOG folk are experiencing something like it.

Fast forward 12 months and how things have changed....completely different mood and optimism with Brockham finally about to be tested. Exciting times for all

Imac1 - please don't put words in my mouth.

I have used a conservative rate of 1,000bopd. Anything else is a bonus.
Folk have doen the maths with 1,000bopd and its very exciting yes.

Yanis - I'll repost another one of my posts from 6th November which should be of help to you. I basically explained what the differences are between the 2 wells. Its like setting up a 1 race car with the wrong size tyres and fuel....you'll never get the full potential out of the car. All the best.

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.

One also has to remember the HH well tests are not using a well that was specifically drilled to produce from the Kimmeridge. Brockham well was specifically drilled to produce from the Kimmeridge.

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.