Member Info for Ja51

Just had a read through the Saltfleetby presentation on page 7 and it states that water disposal is £49.00/bbl!
When Saltfleetby first produced the water cut according to the OGA figures was producing no water at all producing circa 9000 boe/d. Over the years as production dropped off the water cut it has been increasing to a figure of around 2.5% in July 17, for example, producing circa 500 boe/dbefore it was shut-in.

Over that Lifespan there have been intervals where no gas was produced at all. When production resumed the water cut seems to have fallen off.
This begs a couple of questions.
1, Will they have to shut production down periodically to solve this problem.
2, Will the water cut increase % wise as the gas is depleted further?
3, is the £49 bbl disposal figure to be used at Lidsey, and Balcombe should they have a water issue there also?
4, At £49bbl disposal, cost why would they look to the portland at Brockham without a licenced injector well?

Figures are taken from the bellow.
https://data-ogauthority.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/production
http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Saltfleetby-Gas-Field-rev14.pdf

Sorry
I remember reading somewhere that he was restricted from doing this.

Alan
You forgot to mention that.... IF.... his recent purchase of Angus shares had been made without paying the loan back this could easily be argued as being illegal.
It would be difficult to defend buying shares with money that was borrowed from the very company he bought the shares in!!
I remember reading somewhere that he was restricted from

formation water - Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary
Featured snippet from the web
Geology] Water that occurs naturally within the pores of rock. Water from fluids introduced to a formation through drilling or other interference, such as mud and seawater, does not constitute formation water. Formation water, or interstitial water, might not have been the water present when the rock originally formed.

YL

If its Angus water it would seem it may have enough salt in it to be able to walk on!!!....lol

"What are your plans for the water reinjection well at Brockham?What we’d like to do is to discuss water reinjection. We’d like to do more studies internally. We have done it in the past. We may conceivably do it again. We would do it only on the basis that there would be negligible risk of any significant pressure problems on the hole. Over the 20 or 30 years that the Portland has been worked at Brockham, about 300,000 barrels of fluid have been removed. So,it’s a depleted reservoir that could be available for injection. Injecting water would clearly allow us to increase the recoverable oil and would potentially solve problems in terms of disposing of water elsewhere.
We haven’t made any definitive planning or application for that purpose. But what I will say is this: water disposal for the onshore industry is quite an issue. The salinity of formation water is incredibly high. The salinity is of such a concentration that even using the most sophisticated filtration techniques it is almost impossibly expensive to clean it up. And when I say clean it up, we’re not talking aboutsome heavy metal. It’s just the salt. So,you get to a point where we do what we do now. Rightnow, the water has to be trucked several hundred miles and then burnt because there is simply nothing else that we can do with it. We’re at a loss that we can’t get environmental permits to inject 2,000 meters below the surface, 1.5km away from the nearest water table that anyone conceivably uses and yet one gets this great resistance that,somehow,we’re poisoning the environment. And yet we truck it miles and miles and miles up country roads and motorways and then it gets burnt. We’ll consider it [waterreinjection] but we haven’t got any application in to do it yet. Do you need water reinjection to get the Portland flowing at reasonable rates?My understanding is it unquestionably increases recovery, yes."

https://investigatingbalcombeandcuadrilla.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/transcript-of-interview-with-george-lucan-of-angus-energy.pdf

Looks like the Lord didn't fancy the 8.5% drop and 15% spread!

Judging by his valuations of the company I'm not sure if he would be able to take the lens cap off either end !!.....lol

Ocelot
I think you may be looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope.

Why would anyone actually pay for Brockham?? Three wells to de-commission. No EA permit for water injection (which they where/are? paying £50,000 PA to the landlord for) Massive difficulties to get a new EA injector permit and a likely new injector well needing to drilled if they where to get permission at how many £ million cost?...............and all for an estimated 93 Barrels a day from the Portland?

Don't forget they only paid £100,000 for Brockham and Lidsey combined.

I see this far more as a Saltferry type deal that they would need to pay whoever was willing to take it on the" supposedly ringfenced " de-commissioning money.

Just IMHO of course.

ocelot
very quiet!

This part from the interview could be why!!

Q:I’d like to turn to your sites. Can we begin with Brockham: How is the sale going?
A: Those negotiations,I would say,are going on, on a very long-term basis. I don’t expect to see anything happen very quickly. I do think, although there is only one person we are talking to, there are two potential parties in the longer run. But I don’t see anything happening in a six-month timeframe. But we’re not hanging up the telephone.

Q; Why is that?
A: I think availability of funding is one.

Availability of funding is one!?!?!!!

https://investigatingbalcombeandcuadrilla.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/transcript-of-interview-with-george-lucan-of-angus-energy.pdf

Apologies

Q: What is the value of being AIM listed? Wouldn’t you be better off taking it private?
A: I’m not sure...........!!!!!!!!

https://investigatingbalcombeandcuadrilla.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/transcript-of-interview-with-george-lucan-of-angus-energy.pdf

Q: What is ’m not sure.the value of being AIM listed? Wouldn’t you be better off taking it private?
A: I’m not sure...........!!!!!!!!

https://investigatingbalcombeandcuadrilla.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/transcript-of-interview-with-george-lucan-of-angus-energy.pdf

That included the £2.5 for Salt which the OGA could insist on ringfencing!

The only upside is the BOD get their salaries paid for the next 5 years with little actual profit!
The downside is the OGA follow their own guidelines and insist Angus have provision to de-commission all their assets!
That will mean going to the market which they will have to do anyway shortly and hope anyone is willing to offer them money!
That is going to be a very big IF given the last placing was at 4.25p not many months ago when they wanted £5 mil but only got £3mil and lost many money.

If they can't raise the OGA pull the plug and game over!!!

AIMO of course.....LOL

CL "don’t scaremonger"

On 30TH Sep after the meeting you posted
"They have spent some of decommissioning cost. Never been asking to ring fence £2.5m and no known precedent in industry. Angs working assumption is reserve x% of future sales for decommissioning.

In terms of timing, to date on plan – get going mid 2020. OGA relationship good,

Yet In the interview GL says
OGA would only approve or not approve of us as licensor and operator. They could attach conditions, for instance, conditions as to abandonment provisioning and so forth. That’s not a discussion that I’ve yet to have in any detail.
What’s the timescale for the OGA decision?
The application is with them so I’d imagine, when their work burden eases up, they’d be straight on to it, certainly before the end of the year. I’d imagine they’d have addressed this one way or another."

To be fair I would say this is probably just a typical Angus ploy of telling the audience they are speaking what they want to hear, but reading the OGA's own guidelines on the matter the £2.5 mil is far from being readily available cash at this point!

It certainly doesn't sound as if we can "expect the application to come through soon" as you say if they are so busy they haven't even looked at it yet!!

Why would anyone risk scarce capital on a project that is this far from being signed off??

BUTD
You have stated you wernt at the meeting! Interesting the two posters that said they were out of the 5 to turn up have gone quiet. Possibly as the transcript is contrary to some of the points they posted as those stated at the meeting?

So,what is the current status of Saltfleetby?The private deal is done. The application for transfer of licence and operatorship is now with the OGA and it’s for them to take a view on.And does the deal stand and fall on the use of the restoration money to reconnect the site to the gas grid?Wingas has paid us that money and we had to take a view on whether we used those funds to abandon or to reconnect. We are now quite certain, having had three months to go over the data, we are going to try to reconnect subject to permitting and approvals.Do you need OGA approval to use that money to reconnect thegas grid?OGA would only approve or not approve of us as licensor and operator. They could attach conditions, for instance conditions as to abandonment provisioning and so forth. That’s not a discussion that I’ve yet to have in any detail. What’s the timescale for the OGA decision?The application is with them so I’d imagine,when their work burden eases up,they’d be straight on to it, certainly before the end of the year. I’d imagine they’d have addressed this one way or another.

This puts some meat on the bone! Read the transcript.

https://investigatingbalcombeandcuadrilla.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/transcript-of-interview-with-george-lucan-of-angus-energy.pdf

Those bonds could only be accessed once the oil from Brockam or Lidsey would be sufficient to service them. 13 boed is a long way short of that. They were also drafted with two ex-directors in mind. Still an entertaining read though!!!
http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Angus-Energy-NEX-Exchange-Bond-IM.pdf

An interesting artivle that relates to Angus in many ways at present.https://drillordrop.com/2019/10/03/campaigner-launches-crowdfund-for-legal-challenge-over-oil-and-gas-clean-up-costs/

"Third Energy’s assets include well sites, pipelines and a power station. Among the well sites are Kirby Misperton, where Third Energy planned to frack in autumn 2017 but did not pass the government’s later financial resilience test."

Main reason 23rd Jan
Sussex Police says costs of last summer’s demonstrations outside Cuadrilla’s site at Balcombe were £3.985 million.