Member Info for Ibug

lynthip

You have obviously just joined this bb or you would have read my post from yesterday. More than a few formalities imo.

Once the EWT at HH is complete UKOG basically have to start again in the administrative process.

Exert from the " Onshore oil and gas exploration in the UK: regulation and best practice"

"they start again with the process described above: the landowner permissions and MPA/LPA/DOE planning consent; EA, NRW, SEPA or NIEA consultation; and appropriate environmental permit and HSE/HSENI notification before OGA/DETI will consider approving the development."

For that to happen UKOG have put in a scoping request to SCC as the predicted production has been scoped to just below the flow rate that impacts on EIA Development (see below)

"Based on information acquired to date, once operational, the Site could briefly produce in excess of 500 tonnes of petroleum per day for commercial purposes, the threshold at which the proposal becomes a “Schedule 1 development”3 which means it is “EIA development”4 and must be supported by an Environmental Statement (ES)."

Nothing is certain in Oil & Gas development imo.

Renegade
The tanks are on hire so it would have been a case of what capacity they needed imo. If I remember correctly we couldn't even agree on what size the original tanks were as there were so many different opinions from different sources. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter as they can always hire in more when they know what the final flow rate will be.

Nearly all the old tanks were removed.

The new tanks were delivered in February (see Angus twitter account).

Unfortunately the old posts from that period are missing. I think one was a 800 barrel tank and the other 600.

The Vertical Tank 4 – Water Storage Tank (450 bbls) – Separated water from Tanks 1 and 2 is transferred to this vessel where it is stored prior to injection is the only original tank.

The planning documents were suitably vague!

They already have the big storage tank, separating tank and waste tank on site. Why would they need any more?
The only extra tanks I can see arriving at Brockham are the surge tanks like the ones they are using at HH.

Oakleak

It was a FDPA that took 5 months.
There is a big difference between applying for a FDP and a FDPA. Angus already have an Operating Licence and FDP to produce from Brockham and Lidsey. Angus also have approval to produce from the Kimmeridge layer at Brockham after the FDPA was approved.
Once the EWT at HH is complete UKOG basically have to start again in the administrative process.

Exert from the " Onshore oil and gas exploration in the UK: regulation and best practice"

"they start again with the process described above: the landowner permissions and MPA/LPA/DOE planning consent; EA, NRW, SEPA or NIEA consultation; and appropriate environmental permit and HSE/HSENI notification before OGA/DETI will consider approving the development."

For that to happen UKOG have put in a scoping request to SCC as the predicted production has been scoped to just below the flow rate that impacts on EIA Development (see below)

"Based on information acquired to date, once operational, the Site could briefly produce in excess of 500 tonnes of petroleum per day for commercial purposes, the threshold at which the proposal becomes a “Schedule 1 development”3 which means it is “EIA development”4 and must be supported by an Environmental Statement (ES)."

Nothing is certain in Oil & Gas development imo.

Would be nice if you could get your facts right. Brockham has 385m TVD Gross Kimmeridge Shale Section but they are only going to perforate approx 200m (not sure if that is TVD or MD).

Looks like new electrical equipment on site, water tank needs topping up and waste tank positioned.

Looks more like a gay biker group than an Angus Investor group imo.

How do we know it is FOTH. Only the eyes have seen him in the bushes!

In the absence of any CPR £10m per 100 bopd is a reasonable quick guide for oil at $60/barrel. And that is all it is. Obviously a lot more to a MCap than the oil.

Whilst things are moving it is still early days.
I am half expecting a work over rig to turn up to carry out the main work or a larger crane.
Not sure how long it will take them to perforate 200m but I don't think the perforation guns are that long (up to 6m) or how many they can string together at one time as they come in all sorts of sizes and configurations.
Should be a happy xmas for holders here after a long two years.

accepted

oops "NOT involved in"

I don't think wongtogo knew what he was saying looking at the English and spelling. I don't post much these days as the uber rampers can always smell out a good share. Shortsightedness is common trait and you have to look at the big picture. Even now the OGA have not worked out what a "well" is despite the shortfall in the information found nearly 2 years ago. This is what they have had on their website "The OGA is reviewing the definition of “Well”, “Wellbore”, “Well Identifier” etc. with reference to the definitions set out by the Professional Petroleum Data Management Association (PPDM)."
If they don't know what a well is what chance do the companies and the MPA's have.
The outcome of government proposals affects all Oil & Gas companies and it's nice to see some on here appreciate what could be happening long term.
My own personal view is that Tim Hall was totally out of order with his comments as the subject was " shale gas exploration and production". Something that Angus and UKOG are involved in.

Pboo
I would be more worried about the fact sheet put out by UKOG today. Only 16 2 way tanker movements a day. For 6 wells that is under 600 bopd per well which is far less than SS has been spouting on about. Is he trying to fool the locals so it becomes a fait accompli when they need 42 2 way tankers a day?

http://www.ukogplc.com/pdfs/FACTS%20about%20HH%20Final%20Draft%20181018.pdf

I would ignore share_talk. Condescending bunch of amateurs promoting stone age information.

seaace
" I wonder just how big the tubing will be as we know, 2"s at Balcombe was not enough to cope with the volumes that appear capable of flowing."

Where did you get 2" from? I have a good idea where.

https://twitter.com/angusenergyplc/status/1053193546709286914‏

@angusenergyplc
Follow Follow @angusenergyplc
More
We need to use our fossil fuels

https://www.dieselserviceandsupply.com/Natural_Gas_Fuel_Consumption.aspx

Approximate Natural Gas Consumption Chart

I'm pretty sure Angus will be aware of the gas encountered at HH and have taken the appropriate action. That is what they get paid for unlike trolls who get paid sweet FA for obvious reasons.