Member Info for Alan2017

Brooko - you are quite correct.

The figure from the 2nd flow reflects just hydrocarbons ...the water volume is separate to that. Total hydrocarbons observed was 1,587bopd.

"A second flow period was undertaken with the well flowing naturally at 1,587 bopd equivalent, not including 6.6% water."

I think the point that is overlooked in the RNS is "with the well flowing naturally at 1,587 bopd". Naturally means the hydrocarbons came to surface unaided....no water injection...no gas lift....just the pressure from the reservoir itself. That is massive!!!!!

http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/18.10.02-RNS_-Angus-Energy-Completes-7-Day-Well-Test-at-Balcombe.pdf

Pboo - please post where I have stated it wasn't a perforation gun..... I await your silence lol

Meanwhile I'm going to listen to Vonk talking about Brockham "will be a producer....it will be the the first commercial production test in the Weald basin."

Now how come the WealdOilers aren't banging the drum about Angus Energy achievements....and in fact yourself? This is amazing news and what have you posted....negativity.

Brooko - remember Pboo insisting the Balcombe 7 day flow test would not start until Mid October. Not very good with his timelines is he?!!!! lol

#awkward

Brooko19 - very good points. Perhaps the 16th November 2017 RNS will be erased from our memories very soon ;)

The count down is on for SP launch lol

Bergen down to 7.86%....we're getting there folks.

http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ANGS-Angus-TR-1-TR1-October-3-2018-00037415xD3C82.pdf

Ok folks...getting back to business and ignoring certain posters who have blatant agendas.

Angus will carry out an EWT on their deviated well at Brockham and will start producing straight away....after all that is what an EWT is. The oil they produce will be sold to the market and the proceeds divided amongst the partners. Angus have been very shrewd by requesting up to 18 months of testing.....which means 18 months of production. Better to ask for more than required than have the test cut short due to problems.

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

Oil price $85 - $14 operating costs = $70
$70 x 1,000bopd = $70,000 per day x Angus 65% controlling interest = $45,500 per day

So in 1 month Angus coffers fill up by $45,000 x 30 = $1.36 million.
Plan is to test for up to 18 months........no placement required.

And I just used 1,000bopd to be conservative.

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.

So yes my 1,000bopd is conservative. that equates to 5 tankers a day in and out without filling up the surface tanks.

3 months production = $1.36 x 3 = $4.08 million
6 months production = $1.36 x 6 = $8.16 million
9 months production = $1.36 x 9 = $12.24 million
12 months production = $1.36 x 12 = $16.32 million
15 months production = $1.36 x 15 = $20.04 million
18 months production = $1.36 x 18 = $24.48 million

From 1 well.......thats a lot of $$$$$$$

http://irpages2.equitystory.com/websites/rns_news/English/1100/news-tool---rns---eqs-group.html?article=24146677&company=ukog

jeffry - then why didn't Bergen do that ages ago then? Because they have a sell target.

Pboo - I do find it ironic that I am bigging up the UKOG 2016 flow test results and you're calling me rude?!!!

Is it Mid October yet? Sigh.....

JA51 - why do you refuse to post the UKOG Upper and Lower Kimmeridge Flow yet results from 2016?!!! Because they will blow your argument out of the water. If you don’t post the numbers then you accept that Brockham will flow ....show us the UKOG flow test results to back up your argument....very easy.

Lidsey wasn’t drilled in to the Kimmeridge....long sigh Last chance or be consigned to....... Did HH flow test the Upper and Lower Kimmeridge back in 2016?.......I'll answer it for you...Yes. Did both zones flow?...yes. Tell me how much UKOG flowed....go on....give me the numbers and the link. Chop chop...come on ...tell us how much UKOG flowed from the Upper and Lower Kimmeridge back in 2016......hurry up we're all waiting lol You must have found the numbers by now

Today 15:10JA51 - did HH flow test the Upper and Lower Kimmeridge back in 2016?.......I'll answer it for you...Yes. Did both zones flow?...yes. Tell me how much UKOG flowed....go on....give me the numbers and the link.

Chop chop...come on ...tell us how much UKOG flowed from the Upper and Lower Kimmeridge back in 2016......hurry up we're all waiting lol

Check out my post at 01:27 today

"HeidHoncho - The reservoir section was left open for 1 month due to a very brave coring and extensive logging runs....before the liner was run. I see you are using some of my nice quotes like confirmation bias.....so you will also agree that that is a very stupid thing to do, as it goes against Good Industry Practices. "

They screwed up the well.....but that has nothing to do with the formation. they just need to do a sidetrack and drill it correctly.

JA51 - did HH flow test the Upper and Lower Kimmeridge back in 2016?.......I'll answer it for you...Yes. Did both zones flow?...yes. Tell me how much UKOG flowed....go on....give me the numbers and the link.

Did Angus flow test the Upper Kimmeridge at Balcombe?...Yes

Did Angus observe moveable oil at within Lidsey Kimmeridge?.....Yes

That all points to the Kimmeridge having moveable hydrocarbons.

Tell me how for is Brockam from HH.....now don't believe Pboos maths.....4.97 miles as the crow flies. So yes Brockam has oil (first appeared in returns and from LWD logs).

My numbers are actually conservative......but why build up folks expectations with very high numbers when you can base it on a number that is very achievable....hence I chose 1,000bopd.

Angus will be perforating 200m or 656ft.....thats a lot.

These are not made up figures...these are facts. Or are you going to try and dispute this as well lol.

Chairman Tim Hall “Consistency of approach and validity and evidence will be expected at every stage" It's a deal Tim. End of the matter. You're too dramatic lol.

ChasPB - Coiled tubing is predominantly the standard 2" in diameter. Remember you have to get the tubing down there as well.

I'm sure we will see the same test spread again being used at Brockham.....but certainly with a back up.

Oh JA51……….you truly are blinded by those blinkers….

Chairman Tim Hall “Consistency of approach and validity and evidence will be expected at every stage" It's a deal Tim. End of the matter. You're too dramatic lol.

Your comment “Where have you got your figures from?? $70,000 Totally made up.”

Now what did I say in my previous post…lets have a look for you ….crikey,,,in the very first paragraph I said “As soon as they start the EWT ...they are into production for up to 18 months....and all that oil they produce.....is sold.....my calculations are included in this thread.”

Mmmmmm interesting…..lets take a look back at the thread Re: hmmmm

What do we find….

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

Oil price $85 - $14 operating costs = $70
$70 x 1,000bopd = $70,000 per day x Angus 65% controlling interest = $45,500 per day

So in 1 month Angus coffers fill up by $45,000 x 30 = $1.36 million.
Plan is to test for 180 days........no placement required.

And I just used 1,000bopd to be conservative.”

One should really delay pressing the post button until you’ve revised everything lol

The 1,000bopd is a conservative number considering we are testing both Upper and Lower Kimmeridge…how much did HH observed back in 2016? lol And also as I created myself in a later post..its 18 months and not 180 days.

I find your posts goes against everything that this statement insists upon “Consistency of approach and validity and evidence will be expected at every stage”

itsallaboutme - thanks for the detailed explanation.

JA51 - why do you think Angus are doing an EWT for up to 18 months when normally its 90 days. As soon as they start the EWT ...they are into production for up to 18 months....and all that oil they produce.....is sold.....my calculations are included in this thread.

What is 6% of $70,000 a day over the course of a year......thats how much WSCC will be getting and that's how much SCC will get. So yes...there will be no delays...money talks my dear friend.

If you want to quote ...then I'll remind you what he said......Chairman Tim Hall “Consistency of approach and validity and evidence will be expected at every stage" It's a deal Tim. End of the matter. You're too dramatic lol.

I note you never commented on the amazing flow rates observed at Balcombe.....how very odd. In fact...why are you on the board?

Ja51 - I’m not surprised you’re confused....seems a habit with you. Thank you for that posting of mine...very self explanatory lol

GoBig - straight to production bar a few reports being submitted from the EWT.

http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Angus-Receives-Brockham-OGA-Approval.pdf

Apologies...I should have said Angus will be performing the EWT and producing for up to 18 months...so that is a lot of money going in to Angus bak account. Placements will be a thing of the past.

So take my conservative figure below of $1.36 million per month and multiply it by 18.....$$$$$$$$$

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

Oil price $85 - $14 operating costs = $70
$70 x 1,000bopd = $70,000 per day x Angus 65% controlling interest = $45,500 per day

So in 1 month Angus coffers fill up by $45,000 x 30 = $1.36 million.
Plan is to test for 180 days........no placement required.

And I just used 1,000bopd to be conservative.

GoBig - Angus wil be getting money for the oil produced during the EWT. So hopefully very soon and great at these oil prices.