Member Info for Ja51

You guys are hilarious!!

From the E.A.permit " The operator is keen to commence new activities,namely appraisal and production of the Kimmeridge Clay Formation. This could commence as early as December 2018.......Taking this into account,we have taken the decision to issue the permit now "

Think about it for a second..........................................They issued it so they had to upgrade the site before they started maybe!!!

where was that info from Chambers? I haven't seen anything like that. Could you supply a link, please?

Very interesting from someone who calls others trolls that you are the one deliberately misleading people here. Please answer the questions.

I back my FACTS up with the relative information not tosh about the company said this when it didn't and IA press releases.

You keep saying nothings changed but it has as you well know as I'm sure you will have read the 4 forms released by the EA yesterday.
Before you start headings such as this link.
I would suggest you have a long hard look in the mirror and decide who is the bad guy here.
I would suggest you read the definition of a troll up and you may find that the answer would describe your actions far more accurately than mine.

mmm... anyone who thinks that the EA issue press releases I would suggest the naive one.
You are keen for others to confirm their statements please show details of this so-called press release........ and also where the company said they were in compliance last week?

1. The EA permit revoked the groundwater permission, absolutely crucial to operations This was simply as the company didn't provide the information requested even after site meetings with management and their representatives.
2. Gave details of a vastly smaller gas to wire generator and confirmed a permit would have to be applied for a larger unit, very relevant as the gas flow will most certainly reduce the flow rate of the oil as was explained in the SCC planning approval document.
3. gave several examples more of the company failing to give the relevant information after several times of asking.

That may focus some peoples minds as to the competence of the company that looks after their hard earned invested money.

Dropsy
You can't be serious?? When else would they report it other than the day it was published and could be read.

Alan2017
The Tanks would have been craned in so the position of the donkey is irrelevant. They don't appear to be in the way in any case.
And do you seriously expect me to belive that they would design the site so that production from a well would need to be stopped and the infrastructure removed to work on another hole with the costs and loss of production associated?

New EA Permit for Brockham orderly process and transition with the EA. We are compliant with all the new requirements from the EA. Always in communication with our regulators.

But not your shareholders!
What bizarre wording. But are they including the groundwater in this statement as it wasnt included in the consent. Having read all previous correspondence from the company its what they don't say that counts.
Enough wiggle room as normal.

Alan2017
So not the fact that it was producing 16 barrels of water a day then?
Tell me being an expert are they allowed to produce without this crucial piece of the jigsaw which funnily enough isn't included in the permission?

Without the Groudwater aspect which has been withdrawn and is crucial to any works on site from Yesterday.
It explains the recent movements on site to remove the donkey from the well as can be seen in the drone footage.
No Permit for Groundwater NO WORKS simple.

Having assessed the information provided in the application it appears that there may be a risk to the ground water environment. As a result, after several requests for further information, and allowing additional time for further submissions, holding meetings with the applicant and their consultants and carefully reviewing the revised information,we have decided to remove the groundwater activity from the application.
No groundwater activity is allowed in the new environmental
ADVERTISEMENT
permit for this site

I think you are missing the point, They can't tank it or store it on site as they don't have a permit to do so!
They defanatly won't be able to drill as there will be almost certainly be water in the oil.
And you had better check how much water has gone down that unneeded hole over the past 30 years before saying things like we don't need it........... very long sigh.

Its quite clear and translates into you can fix the problems on the list but you cant do ANYTHING on site that will create the need to treat the water whether drilled or contaminated run off until this has been applied for. Reading the bottom paragraph the company are more than aware of this and for reasons best known to them have failed to deal with it................. Incompetence!!!!

There are no groundwater activities authorised by this permit. Any reinjection of produced water and treated site surface water into borehole BRX3 will require a new application to be submitted to add this activity.

Final assessment of re-permitting for groundwater activity of re-injection of produced water We cannot progress the application for the groundwater activity for the reinjection of produced water into the Portland Sand Formation based on the information provided and therefore this groundwater activity for re-injection cannot be included in the environmental permit. If the operator wishes to carry out re-injection they will need to apply for a permit variation
, with the relevant details available, in line with the Onshore Oil and Gas Sector Guidance.We have explained this to the operator as part of the final determination.

Having assessed the information provided in the application it appears that there may be a risk to the ground water environment. As a result, after several requests for further information, and allowing additional time for further submissions, holding meetings with the applicant and their consultants and carefully reviewing the revised information,we have decided to remove the groundwater activity from the application.
No groundwater activity is allowed in the new environmental permit for this site. Any subsequent proposals
for a groundwater activity to re-inject produced water will require the applicant to apply for a variation to
their environmental permit.Having reviewed the information submitted in the September 2018 version
5of the HydrogeologicalRisk Assessment (HRA), in the light of the re-permitting process, we still had concerns regarding the proposals to continue re-injecting at this location using the existing well, infrastructure and the present procedures. The information required to complete an HRA to the correct standard for this site does not appear to exist at present. Our technical decision for removing the groundwater activity of re-injection is set out in more detail below

There are no groundwater activities authorised by this permit. Any reinjection of produced water and treated site surface water into borehole BRX3 will require a new application to be submitted to add this activity.

Bottom of page 2

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/759049/EPR-BL9763IN_-_Brockham_Permit.pdf

Reasons for this from page 9

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/759050/EPR-BL9763IN_-_Brockham_decision_document_FINAL_for_issue.pdf

Yes it was granted but without the crucial groundwater section included.
EPR/BL9763IN/V004
Date issued: 22/11/201812
Final assessment of re-permitting for groundwater activity of re-injection of produced water We cannot progress the application for the groundwater activity for the reinjection of produced water into the Portland Sand Formation based on the information provided and therefore this groundwater activity for re-injection cannot be included in the
environmental permit. If the operator wishes to carry out re-injection they will need to apply for a permit variation
, with the relevant details available, in line with the Onshore Oil and Gas Sector Guidance.We have explained this to the operator as part of the final determination.

It means they cant do ANYTHING without it!! try reading it.

You can forget the rest of the paperwork this is the killer!
Having assessed the information provided in the application it appears that there may be a risk to the ground water environment. As a result, after several requests for further information, and allowing additional time for further submissions, holding meetings with the applicant and their consultants and carefully reviewing the revised information,we have decided to remove the groundwater activity from the application.
No groundwater activity is allowed in the new environmental permit for this site. Any subsequent proposals
for a groundwater activity to re-inject produced water will require the applicant to apply for a variation to
their environmental permit.Having reviewed the information submitted in the September 2018 version
5of the HydrogeologicalRisk Assessment (HRA), in the light of the re-permitting process, we still had concerns regarding the proposals to continue re-injecting at this location using the existing well, infrastructure and the present procedures. The information required to complete an HRA to the correct standard for this site does not appear to exist at present. Our technical decision for removing the groundwater activity of re-injection is set out in more detail below

Gas management
The applicant has provided some details on gas management which is proposed for the Kimmeridge Clay
Formation production in their application.As the level of detail on this equipment and operational procedures is. insufficient, we have required additional information to be submitted for approval under pre-operational condition PO 01 prior to appraisal or production activitiesstartingin the Kimmeridge Clay Formation. Gas from BRX4Zwill be utilised in a gas engine (0.93 MWthermal input) to generate electricity for use on site with surplus exported to the grid. Natural gas from the Kimmeridge will also be used to power a bath heater (1.53 MW thermal input) for heating the oil pipework and separation equipment. No information on this bath heater has been provided with the current application. There will also be a diesel generator on the site which has a thermal input of 0.25MW. The diesel generator is currently used to provide electricity to the site for production from the Portland Sand Formation. There is also an oil fired bath heater (0.34MW thermal input) associated with production from the Portland Sand Formation.

So only a (0.93 MWthermal input) to generate electricity for use on site with surplus exported to the grid.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/759050/EPR-BL9763IN_-_Brockham_decision_document_FINAL_for_issue.pdf

Its all there in black and white from the EA.
Another agency to berate the shocking unprofessionalism from this company.
I assume some of you think they live under bridges also!

Possibly if they took more time on the running of the company rather than issuing themselves outrageous benefits this may not have happened. (The water injector is the major concern here)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/759049/EPR-BL9763IN_-_Brockham_Permit.pdf

https://drillordrop.com/2018/11/26/angus-faces-new-controls-over-gas-acid-and-reinjection-at-brockham-oil-site/

My God Scallywag..........that means Lidsey hasn't been in continuous production!!!
But wait surely that cant be correct as there are 3 RNS's and a couple of interviews by Mr Vonk that state otherwise!!
I suppose it shouldn't matter really ............but hold on a minute what are the actual production figures just 10 BOIPD and only 55 % to Angus you say!!

But surely that would mean the company are issuing incorrect information to the market.

I guess I better do a bit more research or I may be accused of living under a bridge..................lol

Podcast on the Angus twitter feed on the 24th April

http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=ANGS&ArticleCode=fo5grktk&ArticleHeadline=Resumption_of_production_at_Lidsey_and_Brockham

http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=ANGS&ArticleCode=fo5grktk&ArticleHeadline=Resumption_of_production_at_Lidsey_and_Brockham

http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=ANGS&ArticleCode=d8e73eq3&ArticleHeadline=Angus_Receives_Retention_Approval_For_Lidsey_Field

https://itportal.ogauthority.co.uk/pprslive/production-data?start_date=Jul+2018&production_type=OIL&production_unit=OIL_FIELD_UNITS&operator=ANGUS+ENERGY+LIMITED&regulatory_jurisdiction=LANDWARD

Indignation?... it was tongue in cheek but being Dutch I guess you wouldn't get British humour.
Please take The Taliban generals advice and don't correspond with me, you seem a little bit unhinged if I'm honest!