Member Info for Mirasol

Wizz - I admire your ability to find a silver lining in any cloud but can you, for once, just admit you were wrong about the pipeline? You misread - or didn't understand the diagram - fair enough.

To me the fact that UKOG have never mentioned an export pipeline by words or in proper text - other than to say there is none available - is clear

"If that is a oil export pipeline on the environmental permit plans "

No mention of an oil pipeline Wizz - sorry. You'd need over 10,000 bopd for that and it would take years to get through planning system. At US rates (which are cheaper than the UK) you'd also be paying circa $ 3 mm a km - its about 85 km direct to the refinery - so there's $ 260 mm minimum up front.

For gas they say "Only considered if pre-existing pipelines are present and available." - and there isn't

"Are these Surrey Frack Free people correct about there being no legislation in place requiring regular monitoring of pollution etc. at abandoned onshore oil/gas sites? If so, this nicely relieves all these AIM Weald producers of any requirement to make adequate financial provision for this"

Offy I think they're talking b*******. The site operator has a duty of care - if they don't inspect and someone like the EA find a leak then a great weight falls on the Company AND on the Directors. The legislation doesn't say how often you have to inspect but you have to keep it safe.

thats why the UK has never really had any serious onshore incidents cp the USA

Wizz

I 've searched through the documents provided to the EA and I can't see any mention of increased traffic movements. And DoD doesn't mention that in their summary either

Sounds like the local Nimbies are scare-mongering

Well it is good - at least you've seen some oil and the well is flowing! Also it reduces the formation damage - but at he risk of a blow-out occasionally. The punters just have to understand that it may not mean 100, 1000, 10000 bopd - but since a lot of them don't seem to want to question anything the BoD tell them it really doesn't matter ................

I get far more worked up about so-called "flow rates" when no-one tells what the time frame was

when they test the well the well bore is full of "mud" - you blow holes in the casing and assuming the pressure in the tubing is higher than the formation pressure (to avoid a blow-out) some of the fluid is forced into the formation (which is how you get "formation damage").

When they're happy that they have the well under control they ease the pressure at the surface and the fluids in the formation flow into the well and to the surface. Some of this is formation fluid (oil, gas, water) and some is drilling fluid.

You have to keep the initial flows sperate and not reinject them and ship them off site. the EA are worried about contaminating aquifers etc etc with drilling fluids.

Once the well has cleaned up and all the drilling fluid is removed, you can then reinject separated water according to the licence you have.

Yes - they're still talking about it but again they need permits
The Guidance is here

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/onshore-oil-and-gas-sector-guidance/11-produced-water-and-flowback-fluid-re-injection-and-reuse

UKOG don't have permission to import water from anywhere else - say Brockham, -to re-inject. The EA would probably agree eventually but it isn't going to happen overnight. They prefer water from the place you are injecting if at all possible.

EA regulations specifically ban the use of rain water, surface run-off or test fluids without cleaning them to almost drinking water standards (which means it's not cost effective).

There is a very good reason - rain water etc contains bacteria - if that gets into the nice warm reservoir it multiplies like s*** and generates H2S - and that you REALLY don't want. There are plenty of well known examples from the dark past in both the USA and the USSR where people used untreated stream water for injection and in 18 -24 months were producing one of the most dangerous and corrosive gases around.

You forgot OGA figures for production next week....................

"As I have little technical knowledge of oil wells is it possible that with HH2 shut in that the water ingress from the HH2 well will pass though the slotted liner into the natural fractures to replace some of the void in the reservoir?"

With HH2z shut in those parts of the well in communication with the rocks - through the slotted liner or otherwise - will be at the same temperature/pressure as the surrounding rocks. The water coming into HH1 is from a large area around HH - there may be a local pressure sink but water will continue to flow towards HH and into any flowing well. You may see a small drop in pressure in the HH2z bore but its very local.

Pressure support for the Portland will require them to put in at least as much as they're taking out - the danger is the water circulates quickly back to the producer through the high permeability streaks and you're faced with a rapidly increasing water cut , with oil left behind in the less porous rocks

Notice of Results
21 April 2021
Egdon Resources plc (AIM: EDR, “Egdon”) can advise that the Interim Results of the Company for the six months ended 31 January 2021 will be issued on Tuesday 27 April 2021.

A results presentation and business update will be available via the Company’s website.

" Perhaps they could help Brockham out by taking their water."

The EA have tightened up a lot on injecting water from elsewhere . I guess you could argue its the same formation but not the same the same field but I think that would cause some issues - maybe another Planning Application :(((.

True Ocelot - problem is the only way to cut outgoings at HH is to not do anything new - no dual completion, no new wells.

As far as it goes it's probably wise - the 100 bopd are covering quite a bit of their day to day costs. The only game changer is the Turkish deal - it means another raise of course but at least it has a fighting chance of success - whereas it looks like HH is a dodo. Spending cash on planning appeals, PR and legal eagles does nothing for the Company cp with using the money to drill wells.

yes - an excellent summary of Plan A mixster - hopefully that's how it works out

We'll know we need Plan B if, like ANGS & UKOG, they suddenly start talking about geothermal and/or overseas...............

that report is over 5 years old and was produced under Cameron - May and Boris have a very different view as has been seen by ministerial statements and the calling in of the mine in Cumbria

I've seen and heard of costs up to £ 20 a bbl for tankering and treating small volumes onshore UK but most people seem to use £10 a bbl as a ballpark.

"Mirasol Where do you get your figures from? It would mean Perenco are spending about £7m a month on re-injection which is about 30% what they get in receipts."

Its hard to get any hard numbers - for obvious reasons people don't talk much about costs of something that makes them no money. The numbers I quoted are from small onshore oilers - such as IGAS, EDR, Midmar, Star etc over the years

Wytch Farm is a totally different game as we're all aware

"Angus quoted $49 a barrel to treat waste water in their re-injection application for Brockham"

No -one has any idea where they got that number from - but ANGS aren't very accurate on anything - as their "hair salon" contact form this week shows

“I can't see any support from this Govt. for onshore oil & gas” What you mean is, you hope there isn’t and don’t want to there to be
----------------------------------------------------------

Then why is there no new Licencing Round? Why did the Govt pull the rug out from under the oil companies on fraccing without any warning?? Why don't they change the rules on Planning permissions?? Why are universities canceling courses in Oil & gas exploration and Geology??? Why are Conservative Councillors against extending gas licences in N Yorkshire??

Show me a single supporting speech for onshore oil and gas in the last 4 years.

"For all we know they will "manage" the production/re-injection for best fiscal returns. After all we don't know what the costs will be for re-injection yet and possibly never will."

They need to produce more to cover their total costs - around 200 bopd would be OK but there is absolutely no evidence they can achieve that at HH. Water disposal will eat them alive unless they can re-inject (costs are roughly £ 1 a bbl for injection compared to over £ 10 a barrel to truck and treat water). Reservoir performance from the OGA figures is quite well behaved and falls on a typical decline curve. Water production looks like a straight line slowly increasing.

Most other small onshore oilers seem to be able to produce down to 60 bopd with say a 30% water cut and still wash their faces. UKOG have higher costs (tho not as high as IGAS).

I'd say any spare cash they have or can get from a new dilution would far better be spent on Turkey