Member Info for Bubblepoint

As per the RNS, it is simply testing, they will almost certainly not get FLOW from this shallow depth, other than pumping or sucking out anything in the shallow well after perforating, or swabbing out the dregs.

And that assumes the perforations are successful too, if they do not fit a shooting nipple on the well and pressure up from surface to create a manufactured hydrostatic in the well, then the charges will lose significant efficiency and may fail to penetrate fully.

I love it how the twitterati mob jump on here hoping to create some froth to make a fast buck lol..... and then scurry under a rock never to be heard from again lol

Which only adds to the oddness of the ask being nudged up quietly....pretty serious drop in rates for them to not at least think about explaining why via RNS to maybe appease any concerns.

Looks perfectly acceptable to me lol

The ONLY successful thing I can see is £110 million wasted to date Ohhh and the removal of your LINK lol...

They will be measuring it in millilitres lol.....

ZYX,

Almost certainly there is zero drive mechanism at this super shallow depth, therefore I agree, the only way to firstly try and displace well fluids from both the well and the immediate geology behind casing would be to swab it out, or run say coil or other and suck/pump it out.

Still I feel it almost pointless, just an excuse to string it out and make a bigger story to find an excuse to raise and stay longer playing in the area.

Penguins,

I personally think this whole story to perforate and test this ermmm interval, is a total ferkin waste of time & money, OK, so they will likely get "some water & a smidge of oil" AGAIN, and then what ???

It is for me nothing more than what it was at the other hole, a seep that is likely not a seep in these locations, more a seep into a shallow geological small aquafer that is carrying the seep oil from "who knows where", and is in my opinion, likely to really be of little value for all this effort.

They would have been far better accepting the info they got while drilling, which pretty much identified the geological super shallow area, and go spend their time trying to trace it back to where an accumulation "might" exist.

I don't see this as anything more than smoke and mirrors too, just to keep the ermmm "story" alive for as long as possible, and apply some heavy spin on what they see.

Patrick.

Well if the current status is anything to go by, both oil, with U.S inventories showing a glut, and gas futures currently showing at best around 120p for as far as Feb 2024, and Dec only at 115p. hardly setting the world alight !!!

I don't buy into there being much of a rally on wholesale prices any time soon, and it isn't exactly helping with current production at SLBY taking a hit either.

Thing is Penguins, the "workover Leni "full of " gas did at Chalk was simply to drill out previously set "bridge plugs", companies generally set Bridge plugs over the life of a well that is watering out, meaning the lower reservoir slowly waters out as the oil is produced over it's life, so to "cut off" some or all of that water ingress into the well you simply set plug/s to isolate some or all of that ingress.

It can also be a result of "water coning", where over producing, induces underlying water premature entry into the well and cuts short the oil productivity from these areas.

If you go back a few years later and drill them out to allow those isolated areas to produce again, then yes you will get a purge of oil production as the lower area of reservoir that may have suffered "water coning" has basically settled back out again, BUT it doesn't take much to drain off that initial surge of resettled oil in the lower reservoir and quickly starts watering out AGAIN, and he does NOT state what level of water cut he is getting, only states the oil produced.

LG is renowned for such rampy carp in his releases, time will tell, but I doubt it will keep up the levels of OIL production for any decent length of time. I would trust my ex wife mote than these outfits. lol

OP,

It is just my gut feeling, nothing more, and I align that with very low volume creeping up on the ask, which at some point I would expect would give them a chance to work some stock off, Yes I am aware of the bid rules, I'm probably wrong, but "something" is stirring I feel.

I wouldn't call 70m humongous, less than £20k.

Maybe 250k +, then maybe lol

SS new business line, confetti factory !!!

Agree with that HITS.

Tricky times, my gut feeling is the payday loan will go to confetti shares, and I am suspicious of the ermmmm creep up on the ask, no volume in a week that justifies it and it remains highly questionable as to what the outcome will be on the loan etc.

I am half expecting them to end up with the welltest separator back on the well, but that is nothing more than an opinion.

ViS,

The difficulty with the field is that the condensates/liquids NEED to be produced, if for example you choke back your wells then yes you will reduce the ability for condensate/liquids to reach the surface, but the problem with that is they simply fall back down and this will reasonably quickly choke to death the wellbore section that is within the reservoir, basically stopping the gas from being able to migrate from the reservoir and into the well/s.

The condensates/liquids that are currently produced are not sitting as a natural liquid in the reservoir waiting to be produced, they are induced condensates/liquids that come out from the gas being produced as the pressure reduces on it's way up to surface.

"some" portion of those condensates/liquids are even formed right at the reservoir/wellbore interface, and a portion of that does not make it into the well/s, it's density simply drops out further to the low side of the reservoir as "BANKED condensates/liquids, and in this fields case, A4 well trajectory passes through some of that low lying condensate/liquids and is bringing some of that to surface.

The risk for using price projection to determine flow is also at risk of it not actually rising that much, and then you end up needing to compensate in the lower demand months at even lower prices.

Personally, I don't think Angus is in any position to play with flow, I would think they need it flowing at nearer 9-10mmscf/d to get revenues in to counter the soon to be pending payday loan etc, as OP pointed out earlier.

WG,

Personally, I don't believe they will ever WANT to try and produce above 10mmscf/d, even if they "could", primarily as it would simply generate/induce "more" condensates, and that would then quickly knock them back a peg or two, so no point in stressing the production, better to have decent longer term flow, than a quick buck with pain to follow.

this stage of secondary depleted field recovery takes a lot more planning and skill to keep it going and achieve the fuller "drainage" of the field.

Designed, is NOT the MAXIMUM, it is simply ALL systems have some degree of redundancy, that is a FACT in the industry, it does not mean it cannot be used, it is just not optimum, it would be akin to running your own car nearer the red line RPM rather than simply managing your journey at a more OPTIMUM and lower rpm.

You may get there quicker, but you likely won't be going in a months time.

WG,

The compressors CAN at max tilt run around 7mmscf/d each, but it is NOT optimal for it to run at that level, normally around 20% below it's maximum permissible capacity.

ALSO they are CONSUMING 10% of produced gas for compressor engines and likely site generation too. which isn't going to sales.

Fek's sake WG, grow UP.

The CPR has options noted, IF ANGUS DO NOTHING, then the ONLY option for countering the COMPRESSOR critical pressure is to choke back, which simply makes the flowing column lighter and the surface flowing pressure higher.

THEY HAVE anything UP TO reservoir pressure to play with, yes, UP TO 70-80 BARG of DRIVE pressure. what you see at surface is ONLY influenced BY MOSTLY LIQUIDS within the flowing column, install INDUSTRY DESIGNED AND COMMON remedies and you instantly transfer MORE of that DRIVE PRESSURE to SURFACE.

Right, off to do something more constructive than responding to Mr DOOM !! laterzzzz

WG,

You DON'T need to try and VOER stipulate YOU NOTE, like some effort to prove yourself lol, I have also said before about the "liquids" note in the RNS's, more than likely YOU have grabbed on to what I have said in the past lol.

And no, I still don't buy into the constraint on the compressors, it is so marginal it is barely notable. it is simply looking to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Also the "booster compressor" is NOT scheduled until at least Oct 2024, not now.....And that may even slip further IF they find the accelerator string/s are more effective than simulation suggests.

WG,

I am not sure that the "constraint" is actually an issue, as the running of both compressors is well below their actual max capacity capability, and the limit isn't really effective for long periods, only at best a few hours during peak mid day, and even at 9mmscf/d is still pretty close to the optimum of the field flow anyhow.

It's all a bit "splitting hairs" to be looking at such points, along with the fact that most of the critical plant is shaded with "container" top coverings anyway, particularly the compressor units.

Gas compressors are used all over the world, including desert locations, and never really suffer too much from the peak summer temperatures which are often double that noted.

I was quiet surprised to see that the condensate bbl price in the CPR is quiet a chunk lower than many here likely thought, showing as around £30 gbp bbl (naphtha forecast) $37usd bbl, which is near as damn it 50% lower than conventional oil prices.

Also it is a bit weird that the CPR figures for Condy production up to B07T were only averaging 94bbl/d sales, not the near 160bbl/d that Angus have been noting in the RNS's for some time now.

Pre B07T, they were saying consistently 120bbl/d from the A4 & B2 wells, which is about 23% higher than the CPR states, and since B07T, they upped that number by 40bbl/d to 160bbl/d total condy, but failed to say that they couldn't sell it as it is overly contaminated, which means it almost certainly resulted in a loss in disposal rather than how they imply in the RNS that it is 160bbl/d to sales.

I also made a mistake in a past post adding the 40bbl/d condy coming from B07T that would have made that figure nearer 200bbl/d total condy production, it isn't, it is an average of 94bbl/d PLUS the 40bbl/d unsaleable condy from B07T, even if you bolt those 2 figures together then it is still only around 134 bbl/d, around 16% lower than RNS noted.

So basically they will be doing well to get what £24-£25 bbl after transport costs for the saleable condy.

Well they RNS'd it was "fully commissioned on the 3rd Nov, but it would have been interrupted with for a couple of days while they did the switch, fully commissioned is complete.

Looks to align with the switch to direct flow, and removal of the separator to me, the pipework doesn't really change anything much. Levels were relatively decent and consistent prior to that.

Each to their own view and all that jazz, that is what they are,

If these low rates continue and it is directly associated to the B07T removal of the temporary well test separator, then they are shooting themselves in the foot. if it is too much Bo7T crap for the field plant and separator then they should look to get the temporary separator back and get the rates back up to dull tilt again.