Member Info for Bubblepoint

OP,

Yes I know it was directly linked to Mercuria, but they clearly failed on timelines that damaged the hedge significantly, that is down to Angus, no one else.

Tough question Donek,

Angus picked up on SLBY at the right time, it was a fantastic acquisition for what was peanuts really, and it was all going quiet swimmingly getting the pipeline done, getting most of the plant sorted and compressors organised.

Then they tripped over their own shoe laces, with the VERY poor timing on the hedge, which has caused significant damage, cost & loss through missing a chunk of significant elevated prices.

Then they went on to do what REALLY should have been a fairly simple side track, I mean this isn't drilling a well from scratch, where the wellbore down to reservoir is the main cost, they were only poking a window into an old wellbore to sidetrack out into the reservoir and it was a total calamity on timeline, cost & missed production because of that timeline.

They could have arrived at todays point looking like stock heroes, but between GL and some very weak team decisions, they demonstrated more weakness than strength and it looks like it has been reflected in todays price by the market with a lack of confidence and trust. A lot of work ahead of them to correct that, if they can and if they even care !!!

Chesh,

Thanks for lesson, but I will stick with my way, it has always stood me well, and for the record, if you think I am portraying that I never lose on a trade, well that would be stupid, it is impossible to hit it right every time, but as long as I have more success than fails then jobs a good un.

Some folk would do well to set up a dummy trading account, and see how their fair actually playing it realtime and reacting, be it buy/sell/add whatever, rather than the hug n hold regardless, I can tell you it will deliver far more than any hug it out method.

It isn't about diss'ing or pumping some outfit up on baseless noise, it is simply about realtime reacting to how you read both the written and more importantly the unwritten to edge yourself ahead of the game.

Chesh,

For the record, I have NEVER shorted any stock, it is not something I morally agree with. I couldn't care less if you believe that or not, but that is fact.

The biggest alarm bell for me was Angus actually spouting on about the need to do other projects etc to get the company to £100, MC, WHAT !!!! how can that be ???

So we have a decent producing asset with estimated £300-500m of potential gas to produce and the company cannot see it being enough at near 70% discount to that value, to see it alone bring the MC up to £100m !!!!

Something is wrong, very wrong for them to not see that level of value realisation from such a valuable asset.

What could that be ? why does the company its self not rate it sufficient to achieve that as a minimum ??

Weird or what !! but that is their words not mine !!! and it is also part of the reason I am sitting well out for the time being !

Anyway thanks for such a valuable insight about me Chesh !! maybe spend your time more wisely looking into the bowels of this outfit rather than concern yourself about little old me !!

Chesh,

What are you here for ?? ermmmmmm possibly !!!!!!! to make money ???????????

You obviously simply prefer to put your money into a company and then sit on your hands and pray to the share gods that the company will do good by you and make ALL the right decisions, result !! you make a chunk !!

For me, I prefer to read it realtime, as all Aim companies can change as quickly as the weather, and it is THAT that I react too, not some supposed agenda to play out on some faceless forum, which has minimal bearing on real price movements.

You are also welcome to comment on my post about the sidetrack !! you know, point out anything incorrect !! unfortunately it is based on fact, so good luck with that, and you can thank the company for virtually all of it !!

No agenda, I just don't care to tolerate blinkered f00ls who are not remotely capable of seeing the reality.

Gregmn,

Blinkers are for fools, if you are unable to understand the realities, or most likely prefer not to want to take them onboard, then maybe stocks are really something you should not be playing at.

It is a sure route to having to explain to the missus why you can't go abroad on holiday this year, You can simply put me on filter too, then you don't need to read my posts lol.

I already get a sea of green boxes after each post i make, because those on my filter list simply want to bury the post under a pile of nonsense, you are now included in that sea of green lol.

Ps, would I buy Angus at this time, not a chance, but as with any stock, things can change and you can make just as much money on bad news as wells as good, I don't have an agenda, just a factual view Thanks.... now into that green room with WG and a bunch of other erdiots

Was the sidetrack a success, in the reality that it was eventually completed and is producing then you can consider that a success.

BUT it is not the success it was planned to be, meaning they did not drill the 400-450m of horizontal that was originally planned, they barely managed half that, and the consequence is a reduction in the "infill" drainage that it was originally designed to achieve.

Add that to the significant over run costs, which were easily double if not triple what it should have been, and the significant timeline over run, which has to be factored in, meaning what should have been achieved in around 6 weeks, took around 5 months, so factor in the loss of additional production due to that extended duration, that's some chunk of change missed out on.

Now add the loss of what another 200-250m of horizontal could have flowed at, add the cost of what will be reduced reservoir drainage.

So a success ?? for a sidetrack it probably ranks as one of the most costly UK land sidetracks with everything factored in, along with only drilling less than half the planned leg.

I would say they are doing well to have managed to achieve the flow they are seeing from B7T, but it will have a reduced life because of the infill leg shortfall to optimize reservoir drainage. It will result in Angus likely doing a workover on A4, possibly a new sidetrack from that well to reach the infill area B7T failed to reach and solve the low trajectory of the original wellbore that captures too much banked condensate.

Always makes me laugh when people analyse the buy/sells, pointless, especially immediately after a notable placing, add to that, I have been quoted more times than I care to count, above the mid price for a sell, and also below mid for a buy, it is totally down to the book and the MM's at that time as to how they play it.

But for sure, what you see is NOT always what is reality.

AA managed to acquire 60m shares pretty much under the radar, they will do whatever they want to fulfil orders.

As for todays RNS, personally not that interesting, I see this type of project as nothing more than a cheap event to put a green stamp in the book. The pending onshore drilling campaign and anything Anchois related is what will stir the pot notably.

Totally agree BDC, the cos is relatively improved for Loukos, especially as Chariot have the massive advantage of actually being able to calibrate the 3D seismic from the offshore drilling results. It is a massive benefit to map the geology and be able to refine the seismic with such valuable direct information that should easily correlate on to the onshore licence area.

Drill bit ALWAYS rules in the end, but putting an X in just the right places should really give COS a leg up, add to that, unlike PRD who drilled and then needed to raise to do any testing at all, which has done short term damage to the MC/SP, Chariot have ensured they have a decent wedge to likely perform a multi well campaign along with any testing etc, and at least demonstrate any drilling success without hitting shareholders for more in the near term.

This is going to be quiet an exciting year ahead, with a lot of regular news flow to boot.

Robday,

I know exactly what you are saying.

If any major was to come in and want SLBY for storage, then the sooner they can stop production the better, WHY ?? as noted in a previous long post, the longer Angus produce, the lower the reservoir pressure, and the more it dips below "dew point", meaning any major wanting to convert to storage will have to pump in a fair amount of gas to get the reservoir to a suitable baseline, as any use as storage would not want the complication of "induced condensates".

Simply for storage, you want to pump in gas in, and simply allow it to flow back to the grid with minimal or no processing or loss. The longer Angus drains SLBY means the further they deplete beyond storage baseline usage.

This is also likely why they are tagging "other" options, such as the CCUS and H2. as these have totally different parameters to natural gas and the baseline is far less of any concern.

Angus also "carefully" noted in one of the other Q & A answers, that "velocity strings" can be installed without the need for planning permissions etc.

Meaning any workover on any of the 3 current producers does not need planning.

Also for those wondering what is meant by "Velocity string", basically if you take A4 well, which is responsible for most of the condensate production currently seen, what happens is the more liquids content within the production string from near reservoir to surface, then the heavier that column becomes, and the more it restricts what can flow to surface.

For simplicity, if you take your garden hose and empty it of water, and blow down the end, you can easily blow air out the other end, this is the same in a gas field, when a well is only producing gas, the column to surface is super light, so it flows optimally and easily.

Now half fill your garden hose with water and try blowing down it, you will struggle to drive the water out of the hose.

So in a well or wells that are producing liquids and gas, you have a heavier column from reservoir to surface, meaning the reservoir pressure is finding it increasingly harder to push out the gas and liquids to surface.

So what can you do, if you reduce the production string size, from say 3-1/2" pipe to 2-3/8", you reduce the volume per foot by around 50% but the velocity of the gas and liquids traveling to surface driven by the same reservoir pressure is likely to double or triple, simply because the much increased velocity helps to push the liquids out faster, therefore you can maintain higher production for longer in an ever depleting reservoir with increasing fluids.

The condensate question is inline with what I expected, and it also highlights that B7T isn't JUST a temporary flow line, it must have an additional separator within the line too, to enable the condensate from B7T to be dropped out before the processing plant, so it is likely part of the well test supplied package with well test temporary flow line, that also requires well test personnel to man this 24/7, likely only a day & night shifts of 2/2 personnel, but it will have a notable daily cost.

The answer simply aligns with the reservoir producing at or just below "dew point" which is the point that condensate is induced from the gas as it flows in to the wellbore, and A4 well is capturing much more as some of that induced condensate is dropping down lower in the reservoir and being "banked" and collected by the lower sweeping A4 wellbore trajectory.

As for the "storage" hopes, as said before, don't wish it too soon, switching the field from producer to storage will immediately cut off and "end" production revenue and the end of SLBY as a production site, and then enter a no revenue, high cost window to convert to storage.

I would much rather see Angus maintain production, maybe even poke another sidetrack for further "infill" to optimise drainage for at least the next 5-7 years. giving time to hopefully build a decent war chest for whatever they line up in the future.

Add to that, it will provide A LOT of near term drilling, results, analysis, and hopefully additional discovery and CPR news flow, which if successful will really help to get Char MC/SP moving instead of sitting in the tight range it has been in since Anchois.

It will help draw in a lot more attention, which should help when they bring in updates on Anchois too.

Personally think Chariot are bang on with this easily accessible licence and the potential it offers.

It can be drilled, evaluated, appraisal drilling and development can be achieved is as little as 1/10th the time and for as little as 1/5th of offshore.

They have clearly been offered this on a plate and seem to have done a decent amount of due diligence on the licence and related, available information to establish this as a fantastic "infill" to the highly significant offshore discoveries.

I think it is really on the money, as any reasonable success will help to get the domestic market closer to saturation, and leave more of Anchois to potentially go to export at much greater prices.

So try and double up on the bigger picture, along with infilling whilst they glue the far more significant longer needs & leads of Anchois.

Hopefully all will come good to generate a perfect storm !!!!!!!

Ibug,

I posted on UKOG's own twitter feed about the gun size being totally wrong as soon as they put the image up.

You are correct in that I didn't post anything on this forum, mainly because no one really wants to hear or see that, and it would have had a million bashers posting against it, thus why I kept it only to the official twitter feed, anyone seriously invested would have been looking at the twitter updates and word travels fast, so no real need for me to kick off WWIII on here.

ATB

BV,

PLEASE, read your own post, it is just about as dire as it gets when it comes to advise, akin to stock suicide !!

You are clearly quiet happy to just keep hanging on to even the weakest glimmers of hope you can derive from Angus, and stick your fingers in your ears & close your eyes, while making silly noises to blank out what is in front of you.

Your Monika Balancedviewer, is missing an Un at the beginning !!

I have resisted putting you into the green room, but your level of stupidity is beyond help, enough is enough, so in you go !!!

Mysteron,

The problem with HSD perforating guns is that they are shaped charges, the shaped charges generate a super heated gas jet that is combined with propellants to erode and help clear the materials that the gas jet is super heating on its route to making those perforations.

The problem is that these type of guns also need a decent amount of hydrostatic pressure in the well, the hydrostatic pressure has a significant effect on the gas jet and propellants as they burn their way out from the gun body, by helping to keep the super heated gas jet focused, without hydrostatic pressure the gas jet has nothing to around it to keep it tight and focused.

It is kind of equivalent to trying to shoot something with a blunderbuss compared to a high powered rifle, this well is ultra shallow, so even when filled with brine or other kill fluid, it has almost no real hydrostatic pressure of worth to utilize such perforating guns.

How do you overcome that? it would require them to use a 5-10k psi rated BOP and electric line stuffing box on the well with the guns inside the well at correct depth, then they would need to utilize a pump truck that can T into the well at surface, and then pump up the wellbore pressure to a suitable range for the perforating guns to be effective.

It is actually "extremely" dangerous and risky, because when the guns are fired, the gas jets create a massive pressure wave, which is usually dissipated almost immediately as the perforations break through into to formation, BUT any failure to penetrate the formation then means that pressure wave is retained within the wellbore, and at such shallow depth can be extreme, and overcome surface equipment.

Many on here seem to think it is just a simple perforating gun run, it isn't, add to that, UKOG have already made a stupid mistake with the previous gun size, as I noted in my post on their twitter page, and low and behold it was absolutely correct, as per their later RNS declaring so.

It could even be that UKOG are struggling to get any service provider to actually want to perform this service at such a shallow depth, because of the risks noted.

Since the start of SLBY story, where the SP was around 0.8-0.9p, with a great plan and a general costing and associated raises to cover the works, it had all the hallmarks of something special, both by luck relative to the rallying gas prices and by judgement to take it on with a decent plan to set up processing, compressors and a to grid pipeline.

It was a perfect storm.

Everyone invested since that time has had opportunity to at least de-risk their stakes as a minimum at prices up to 2.9p.

If you chose to sit on it for the "end game" whatever that be, means you simply put your money in, trust the company to do all the right things and hopefully deliver a fat wedge of profit at the end of it all, therefore there is no need to track it daily, simply switch off and wait for the end.

But as with most Aim oil, there is no good straight road to this, most have more pot holes in them than your average UK road, and as with this, the goal posts have shifted significantly, both through poor management decisions, some management desperation, missed opportunity relative to gas prices and delays through issues etc.

How many if they had the chance would dump the lot if they were offered 2p right now, today to walk away ? most if not all, but it has been up there and more.

Simply doing nothing or averaging down only buys and ties you into more of "whatever" the company wants to dish out, and reflecting on past actions says it should be the last thing to be considering to do.

RH can say whatever he wants, but at best he is has been landed with a massive sink full of dirty dishes to get through before he can even get to see and put the plug in the hole.

Throwing mud around on a forum in frustration won't change a thing, if people actually dedicated the majority of their time digging deep to spot the potential negatives that they need to react to, then it give you a chance to at least protect yourself to fight another day, the positives are not what hurt your health & wealth, and therefore require less attention.

Don't burn yourselves out infighting, spend your time working out "your" best exit plan, set a disciplined target, stick to it and do not be tempted with the usual posts when any price rally starts and it goes from 1p to 1.5p and the feel good kicks in and everyone starts shouting next stop 10p, as it gets sold into.

It won't stop the backbiting on here, but I can assure you, not one of those involved in Angus have suffered, their personal wealth has only gone one way while they undermine the good company asset with more debt and misery for end game holders.

I don't believe I have JTS, and if I have then it only goes to demonstrate that Angus has smothered the company with so many placings, various unpleasant debts, the hedgegate issues, overrun costings, Forrestgate etc that it is simply far too messy to have ANY clarity and understanding, as said, the great asset and cash cow it should be has simply been undermined by the company and some really poor management ways.

I will repeat, I am not against Angus, I didn't create the financial mess they got themselves into, they did that, and now they need to hope the GF gets secured, they can clean up this debacle through consolidation, and buy themselves some breathing room to rebuild, restructure, gain some confidence & trust back and maybe even some ash in the bank to fund future needs and projects instead of bleeding everything and everyone around them.

Cheers OP, I forgot that little chunk of change owed to PF, as for the plant, well it is producing what the wells can deliver, so that isn't really a biggie.

I will say, I am not against Angus, I think SLBY was by far one of their best ventures at the right time, but Angus isn't new to this game, they really should have been absolutely on it like a sky rocket in all avenues, but clearly demonstrated that they have flaws in their costing and contingencies, transparency and finance management.