Member Info for Bubblepoint

Another weekend of the same REGURGITATED stuff, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The weather is great outside, go enjoy, the next few weeks should give a far more clear indication of what all the efforts deliver or don't deliver.

And I will maintain my stance on SLBY that whatever they do it will never be a gamechanger, in part as Offy notes (again) that they have pretty much undermined the core value over the years. meaning the potentials for upside are always now compromised.

AND I will maintain my stance the Balcombe is probably THE best chance of some decent movement, as and when they get to it.

Even with any booster upside, it is only attempting to regain lost ground, This why my punt is small, relative to the reality.

Ohhhh dear,, the mvppit show has arrived in town !!!! rather predictable lolol

I sense the "market" was expecting fireworks from installation of the booster compressor, which obviously isn't giving them the almost immediate uplift they want to see, AND there is NO guarantee that it will uplift at full optimisation to wanted levels. It is tertiary reservoir recovery, and it is probably the hardest to get right and optimise, simply because the conditions are fragile, the more fragile, the more effort and time it takes to harmonise, as well as lifting liquids out too.

AND before anyone spouts "backtracking" not at all, just a realist, the fact the SP is scraping the barrel is in my view ONLY due to the time it is taking to do this.

WG,

As said, stop being a total perlock, it is simple, NO ONE KNOWS what they are doing on location, NO ONE knows what the program is for the whole Booster harmonisation and condy clean up.

EVERYTHING within the daily numbers is of no real value to ASSUME anything, other than they are still producing from one or more wells with or without booster, cranking up or cranking them back, WE do NOT KNOW.

So your pathetic efforts to try and justify your dross as some form of fact only makes you look MORE of a kerlown that you already look...

Agree TC,

Also I strongly believe they are probably trying to manipulate the flow rates to eek out more of the "banked" liquids/condy sitting in the bottom of the well and near wellbore reservoir, which may also be way off ideal for harmonising.

Meaning they are almost needing to perform a "mini" clean up process before they can get the the main event of harmonisation.

It should be VERY telling in the liquids production figures, guess we will find out in time.

Unfortunately, when you are dealing with persistent arrogant idiots then shouting is often called for. heyy hooo

You KEEP spouting on about factual documents, and I WILL keep telling you that most of what you are referencing is historic and based on SHED LOADS of ASSUMPTIONS to reach their "interpretations.

NOW, rather than YOU constantly looking for a 10 minute blip to jump in and SHOUT FAILURE, hows about you shut the duck up and let them get on with their job, and WHEN they report the eventual RESULTS. factual harmonised results, then WE can discuss.

I do not expect them to achieve such optimum production for a while, simply because, EVERY small change you make, requires you to then allow time for that small change to stabilize, which could be hours or days, it may make it worse, it may improve, it may require another adjustment and more days, it may be that they get it close, then adjust another well and it throws everything out downstream.... the LIST GOES ON...

Anyway, it is lovely outside, I got a lot of work to do, far more interesting than responding to the board doom mongerer...

WG,

You can post whatever YOU like, the FACT is the ONLY true information is the END result from the field, and what it delivers NET.

Now you can play your childish easy pick moments to try and justify your games, but as said, WE are more than happy to allow the time for them to get everything slowly harmonised and deliver the potential upside.

For all we know it could be simply that one well was shut in for a reason, or they choked back to monitor variations down stream, REALITY is we do not know what changes they are making or playing with, so rather than JUMPING to your unjustified conclusions, LETS wait and see how it delivers once THEY inform us that it has been optimised and this is what we have.

As said, good bad or ugly, it will be whatever it will be !! but I strongly suspect they have some way to go in this process yet.

WG,

You are pretty clueless, nothing has changed at all, meaning they may well have some way to go in tuning/harmonising everything, it is very complex, in that even small changes from any well or downstream from the booster can have dramatic effect, time will tell, not your one day fickleness to make your childishcomments.

Mirasol,

There is no questioning that the original well test was done badly, be that from the overall planning from all concerned, or simply operational "realtime" bad decisions. for which they can only blame themselves. To go to all the trouble of drilling this and then filing to do a thorough test program is madness , but it is what it is.

At least it was not P & A, meaning no going back with possible corrective measures and a more thorough plan, logic is 1000% that if questions remain unanswered through past poor decisions, then best to go back and conclude 100% either way.

Thankfully they have managed to keep the door open on Balcombe, in such an environmentalist controlled country we now live in.

I have always maintained that there are viable pockets of mobile hydrocarbons throughout the basin, small but viable, hitting them is the toughest part, so any hint that you may be into one is worth delving into.

We know the basin geology "in general" is tight, it is easy to simply apply that to this location but by no means does it mean it is the case at this location.

It is also reasonable to consider that Conoco tests were ultra crude, basic, and it is possible even the drilling techniques used at that time may well have also compromised the flow back if the reservoir is pressure limited, or the muds used were a little too heavy and caused wellbore skin damage etc etc etc, the list goes on and on.

As I noted in my Balcombe write up, I don't buy into their stated rates for the reasons noted, but just as with a number of small production sites over the huge basin, there is potential and I stick by what I noted as possible.

It is going to happen regardless of what anyone says here, time will tell, and I am sure that after all the efforts to regain the permission, that the program will at least be thorough & conclusive.

Mirasol,

Conoco drill may well have chosen an area at Balcombe, or drill target that very easily could miss a modest pocket/trap of mobile hydrocarbons, there are plenty of faults throughout the area that create such isolation too.

Also when Conoco was drilling in the basin, they needed much bigger finds for commercial consideration relative to the $ per barrel at that time.

As for the flow during the test, well it is absolutely clear that a significant portion of fluids were not lifted from the well, meaning the clean up phase needed way longer, and possibly additional coil tubing efforts to get that lifted out.

The fluids issue at Balcombe is no different that the liquids issue at SLBY, meaning the water is holding too much oil back, like SLBY, remove the higher density liquids to unload the lighter hydrocarbons.

""Use the filter""

Mullins,

The filter only stops YOU seeing the posts, and the reason I generally don't use it is because as much as the likes of WG & Co may be really irritating, "maybe" on a rare occasion they "might" just highlight something of real noteworthiness, that requires more digging and understanding, I always believe that for every negative, that somewhere amongst that negativity you can extract some positives, or at least learn something.

I don't know everything about this industry, it is impossible, I just have a very good general understanding, and that also means I can make a poor judgement call on something.

Afterall, it is not generally the positive news that hurts our wealth, it is the negatives that cause the damage and these companies spend a LOT of time greying over them in the hope it isn't picked up on. so for all the pain of the likes of WG & co, I personally don't dismiss them totally.

"""And I don’t recall ever saying they hadn’t risen after the compressor was installed on the 11th."""

WG, REALLY !!!! How many times have you regurgitated the same old " the booster will consume more than it gains" ??

If that is so, then we would not see a NET increase, we would see NO change or a further decrease in NET production, Ahhhh that is because as I said, the consumption is all part of the GROSS, and therefore that good olde boosterie compressoreeee is already showing some NET worth.....

T.C

My Balcombe write up is in my posting history, Page 4, March 2nd, 3 posts, Part 1, 2 & 3, I am sure you must have seen it posted by me before though.

My view on Balcombe has not changed from when I originally put that post up about 2 years ago.

Offy,

I certainly do not disagree with you on the "trapist" side of things, and this is partly why I near always trade on or before news, as inevitably the good news often has some form of placing attached to it or other cost related spin, BUT they are absolutely no different to 90+% of all Aim oilers, it is simply how they function, I don't complain about it, I simply work my stock with the hope I actually slip around these games.

As for the cost of velocity strings, I don't doubt they will spin the cost out to be up there somewhere, even if it is done cheaper, but again, something I see on most Aim oilers.

The "new well" drilling is a different story, for me "IN MY OPINION" it is at least 2 fold, firstly to hopefully tap any stranded gas that has not been extracted yet and is not in full direct communication with the current producing area, either geologically bound or just variation in permeability meaning it is tighter in some areas and creating isolation.

Additionally they will almost certainly explore the deeper reservoir for either additional gas resource, or to evaluate the findings for further storage capacity.

Either way, a new well is likely required for both, meaning they strategically need a well in that location to maximise storage and for initial potential as a producer,

As already said, evaluation of risk Vs cost has to be fully justified to move forward, no one is drilling wells for "fun" in today's environment.

PMSL now WG,

What has Brockham got to do with anything, WE ALL know it is borderline of no asset value, BUT they are producing and likely they are at least draining what they can, while they can, and covering the cost of the eventual abandonment and restoration of the field.

Again NOT rocket science !!!!

WG,

You make me LAUGH really,,, I was pretty much ON the money with the sidetrack, Of course there are SOME variation to what I post, WHY ?? well as ALWAYS I post "in my opinion", MEANING I am NOT on the rig crew, I don't work for Angus, BUT I will give my best interpretation of events and what is LIKEY to come. NOW if YOU are dvmb enough to either take every word I post as FACT then more fool you, as it is not possible to be FACT, but then I know YOU DON'T, BUT YOU like to try and cloud my posting by making it out to EVERYONE else that this is the case and I post carp !!

Thing is I have ALWAYS declared my position, and that I always trade a % of my holding, WHY ?? because (and don't be too shocked at this) this is a STOCK MARKET, yes a MARKET for trading your stock as YOU see fit, also as Aim is mostly news driven then I wisely work my stock in line with that.

I feel you are NOW reaching into the bottom of your barrel to try and get a raise, Honestly, I only read half your post, because it is typical WG drivel, bad news for you is I will continue to post regardless of if you or your darkside cohorts like it or not.

Also as said, my punt here is small, the reason for that is AS I HAVE ALREADY stated, that the current work at SLBY is not a game changer, but it "should" see some slow build in value based on what they are doing and have done recently.

Now Balcombe is a different story, that "could" be a worthy play, I can if you want, repost my take on Balcombe, I know you are bored and that would give you some weekend reading to choke on !! let me know, happy to oblige !!!

Ohhh deary meee, resorting to trying to diss my industry knowledge ehhh.

Honestly I don't care about YOUR opinion of me, WHY ?? because WHEN I answer a question I actually put detailed reasoning behind them, unlike yourself that can only refer to very out of date, historic CPR info that is based on a world of assumptions.

As for the decline, Well I hate to tell you this but ALL PRODUCTION FIELDS decline from the second they draw their first breath, it is oddly a defining occurrence.

Also if every company shied away from investing in secondary and tertiary recovery techniques then half the worlds oil would NEVER be recovered. The cost isn't always that heavy, and no company will perform such field works unless there is definitive evidence that JUSTIFIES the cost Vs return. FACT.

The world is full of Armchair warriors such as yourself WG, take a break, go crack an egg or two.

Just like Angus, you cannot make an omelette without first cracking open a few eggs....

WG,

You really are sooo desperate to try and spin some DOOMMM, they cannot deliver "honeymoon" rates until they have harmonised it all, and that cannot really happen until the initial flow has lifted out at least some of the "banked" condensates from the wells.

No one here is crying and stamping their feet on the ground "except you", as WE know it is coming and we know we have to allow the time needed to get it all in the right place.

Try giving it a rest, save some of your worthless firepower for say Monday evening, so it can sit on the front page prior to markets opening Tuesday, you know, the usual carppy tactics of the uninvested sideshow Bob's !!

OtM,

There are 2 possibly 3 options to install a form of velocity string, the most expensive would be to bring in a workover rig and pull the production string and install a much smaller I.D tubing, and as said, the cheapest method would be to run large coil tubing inside the original production string, then cut and hang it in the wellhead and produce through the coil.

Difference is probably workover being over a mill with rig costs, and with coil maybe 1/3rd of that.

The reason for them not to have installed the velocity string yet, in my opinion, is that they want to see how the booster compressor delivers, in both helping to lift more liquids from the well along with increased gas flow.

Once they have harmonised all 3 wells flowing into the booster and got those numbers, then they can calculate the next phase of decline, and work out the best window for installing velocity strings.

I also expect that part the reason not to install the velocity strings before the booster has been run and evaluated, is that once you install velocity strings, you are committed to whatever flow you can get through them, meaning the notably smaller I.D of that coil or tubing will "as per the name" increase the velocity of the gas and liquids travelling up it to surface, the objective of this is the faster the gas travels up the coil or tubing, then the more liquids you evacuate from the well with it. BUT the volume or amount of gas and liquid will naturally be less, smaller coil or tubing will result in lower daily production.

So they are right in doing as they are at this time, and see how it pans out with the booster first.

It isn't rocket science Offy, the gas and condy sales are increasing by the amounts noted then that is NET production to sales, and it means the compressor consumptions are Gross "infield" prior to actual reported volumes.

It would be logical, I mean some countries still flare, they do not count the flared gas as NET, it is just part of the process to achieve the NET value.

As for velocity strings being "expensive in your opinion" they can actually be very inexpensive in industry terms, simply by running large coil tubing in from surface, terminating and hanging it off at surface and producing through that, which is a simple approx 2 day op per well.