RE: Broadford Bridge22 Apr 2025 23:24
Ocelot,
this might have been an excuse UKOG used but it was rubbish, and much the same as their waiting for Loxley before more Kimmeridge drilling at HH:-
'For a long time, one of the reasons UKOG held on to BB was to learn of Angus's results at Balcombe'
More likely they held on to it to string along the 'believers' and avoid the reinstatement costs - presumably hoping one that one their other appalling ventures would defeat the odds and be successful and then they could afford to do it.
BB had the most extensive testing of the Kimmeridge of any well anywhere, even HH-1, and almost certainly more than anything Angus might do at Balcombe as the horizontal is confined to a single layer.
The fact that UKOG produced very little oil (a few barrels) during the months of testing 6 KL layers at BB (the testing report is in the public domain) would be uniquely relevant to the understanding of the Kimmeridge at BB as would the testing carried out of the Kimmeridge at HH for the Kimmeridge at HH.
Balcombe (or Loxley) Kimmeridge testing might be interesting, and if successful to the extent of the HH Kimmeridge testing was, which didn't lead to to it being put into production, an opportunity to BS about the Kimmeridge again - but it would seem that in reality the Kimmeridge is not capable of long term production - based on the little that UKOG did RNS about the HH Kimmeridge testing it appears it can produce reasonable amounts for short periods and then required to be shut before another flow period. UKOG had an HH RPS Kimmeridge report from June 2019 done which they were silent about until the 2020 Annual Report (published March 2021 with 1.5mmbbls 2C resources to the Kimmeridge at HH instead of the previous billions of OIP) which appears to have lead to all the Kimmeridge plans being abandoned - eg deepening HH-2 in late 2019, sidetracking or dual completing HH-1, and any new wells into the Kimmeridge.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
