Member Info for Penguins

There seem to be 2 issues.

The Portland 'final' results are taking too long and the Kimmeridge set up for testing is taking too long.

The Portland results are not taking too long a CPR can take a long time to produce and even if it has been fast tracked it will be commented upon by HHDL (and probably all the shareholders) which could involve meetings and a lot of back and forth rewrites before being issued (Markwells Wood which was far less important took a month from draft to final agreed document).

I suspect the 362 bopd in the 10 September RNS was part of a preliminary calculation as it was such a detailed figure in comparison to the horizontal well figures (2x and 3x 360). Whether we have to wait for a full CPR or something else I have speculated on already.

The Kimmeridge is being set up (according to the 10 September RNS) with a test completion over both the KL3 and KL4. While this won't necessarily double the set up time but it will extend it. It took about 2 weeks from the start of operations on the Portland to start of flowing - 27th June to ca 13th July (4 days before RNS 18th July).

Dodge,

No I'm not. I just take literally what was in the 10 September RNS:

RNS:- 'HHDL's internal declaration of Portland commerciality is therefore expected shortly following receipt of Xodus' final connected oil volume analysis.'

Which doesn't mention CPR does say HHDL will make the declaration and doesn't mention anything other than 'connected oil volume' - if this information is in a draft CPR for instance they wouldn't be able to release the details. For instance I would be surprised if the flow rates mentioned in the 10 September RNS were all that Xodus reported to HHDL.

I also suggested this might be poor drafting (morocco got excited about sloppy).

StarBright - I'm sure a CPR will be issued - maybe tomorrow - but that's not what the RNS was promising 'shortly'.

it would give you more credibility if you actually spelt their name correctly - it's Xodus.

Anyway you are right, and as I've been saying all along (and not just this week) a comprehensive CPR takes time, but is that what we are going to get.

The RNS only mentioned connected oil and HHDL (not Xodus) would make a commerciality decision so maybe even the connected oil (and more important the recovery from that 'connected oil') might not be released - which would be bad news as it would suggest something to hide.

RNS:- 'HHDL's internal declaration of Portland commerciality is therefore expected shortly following receipt of Xodus' final connected oil volume analysis.'

I hope it's just sloppy drafting.

However as far as the Portland is concerned it certainly isn't going to be a 'blueprint for HHDL (& ultimately the Weald) to develop the discovery into a production asset' as the Portland is not a Weald wide target and is only a target within structural closures in the north of the Basin. So your sentence without what's in the brackets.

What is interesting and awaits explanation (hopefully in the CPR) is that the performance of the Portland at HH seems way better than anywhere else, which is so far the case with the Kimmeridge.

Planning permission, production licence and FDP Approval are 3 separate things.

I think these days all onshore licenses are 'production' licences, most are PEDLs.

FDP Approval is the permission given by the OGA to go ahead with production and planning permission for the development is required (according to the regulations) prior to applying for FDP approval.

None overrides the other. Having a production licence doesn't give the right to produce without PP and FDP approval and both PP and FDP have to be obtained.

I can't imagine Balcombe has either PP or OGA approval for production.

JBG,
I saw your post on the other board but they are so touchy there - but Balcombe did produce some oil:-

3-3/8” TCP guns at 6 shots/ft were used to perforate the casing from 2,365 feet to 2,405 for DST no.4. the initial influx rate was too low to measure. Again a 3,000 gallon 15% HCI acid wash was performed; however this time a significant improvement in the flow rate was seen. The post acid-wash influx rate was estimated at 50 bbls/day. 46 bbls of 33” API oil were recovered from swabbing.

The 46bbls was swabbed and the 50 bfpd looks like it was the acid wash being pushed back by the reservoir.

Only 40ft of perforations but quite different flow characteristics.

Stimg69, we've crossed swords a few times but health is more important than wealth and dare I say it UKOG - my best wishes for a good outcome for you and your wife.

Cockernhoe,

Lots - there's a link somewhere to what a CPR should include but the input from the ewt is fairly central to some of those contents.

The main purpose of the ewt is to generate a series of flow rates and pressures that can then be compared to a model that is generated using subsurface mapping and the geological model of the reservoir.

The aim is to history match the results of the ewt and the model.

The model can be difficult to build as there may be effects from unseen barriers (faults), changes in lithology. thickening and thinning of the units seen in the reservoir so it becomes a process of iteration adjusting parameters to achieve a history match. Fracturing (also present in the Portland apparently) will be a complication in the model.

The best fit match to the ewt can then be assumed to be a good representation of the reservoir and then they can effectively see how it performs flowing at various flow rates in the future.

The 'best' result will be a balance between decline rates, flow rates and achieving maximum recovery and will be a discussion between Xodus and UKOG (HHDL).

Have a look at the Markwells Wood CPR in general and 4.4 onwards for the description of the digital model building.

If UKOG (HHDL in this case) don't agree with somethig in the CPR they can of course put their view, but Xodus wouldn't be obliged to accept it. Looking at the Markwells Wood CPR it took a few passes between first issue to UKOG and final release (about a month)

I'm surprised Xodus arrived at such a precise figure of 362bopd for an initial 24/7 sustainable rate without having actually built a reasonably performing model with a production forecast and thus connected oil etc.

Interesting

In the version first released in March the BB cement bond was dealt with in the 2017 report and accounts thus:-

'Subsequent analysis showed that the cement bond, between casing and reservoir, was less than optimal over some intervals. The result of which would be that the well bore is not connected to the best open fractures of the reservoir. The decision was made to pull the completion string and work over the well. However subsequent analysis and testing demonstrated that over the main zones of interest the well's cement did not require any remedial treatment'

However in the version now on the website (pdf modified 31 May 2018 according to properties) this paragraph has been changed and no longer has the last sentence.

'The decision to workover the BB1-z exploration well also followed an assessment by two independent consultants and the Company that the quality of the cement-bond between the well casing and the surrounding rock was not optimal, particularly over some of the secondary interbedded limestone and shale units in KL1, KL2 and KL5. As a result the completion programme had in some places not effectively connected the BB-1z well to the best open natural fractures, therefore the testing up to that point had been unable to accurately assess the flow potential from the KL sequences.'

Unfortunately I didn't download the original version just copy and pasted from the website - the original version above is from a old post.

Captain Stanley,

it's funny that everyone remembers what Vonk said, but forgets that UKOG made a strong rebuttal, and also said in their 2017 annual report and accounts:-

'Consequently, neither the drilling fluid nor drilling and coring methodology appears to have “damaged” the reservoir (i.e. blocked or plugged fractures surrounding the well bore).'

Apologies pboo I misread a brochure and it was just another retrievable bridge plug.

But, I doubt they have the equipment required to drill through cement, and mill metal using a crane - mud circulating, rotating equipment, and whatever that thing is it wasn't a drill capable of drilling out a plug in 9 5/8 casing.

I would also be surprised if they cemented the plug above the KL3 (which seems to be a requirement for a permanent bridge plug)

Pboo

Still doesn't look like a drill, and I think you'll find there are 'permanent' bridge plugs that don't have to be drilled to be removed / moved.

Pboo,

I hope not. Usual misinformation.

They wouldn't be drilling with something like that - if anything it's a tool to latch on to maybe the 'retrievable' bridge plug to move it / retrieve it.

Oh and that was from yesterday?

Keef,

Very unlikely that there will be any significant change to the only estimated production figure released post the current testing, but I still wonder at the difference between these 2 statements, and remember every word is crafted (or should be) in an RNS to put things in the best light.

'could achieve a forecast sustainable initial 24/7 pumped rate of around 362 barrels of oil per day ("bopd")* when full scale long-term production commences'

'production was restricted to sustainable 24/7 rates of between 140-160 bopd. It should be noted that these rates do not reflect the Portland's full flow potential that could be achieved either via successful further optimisation'

So what exactly does initial sustainable rate mean? Either it's an initial rate or, as in the second extract, sustainable 24/7. To me the question is how sustainable is this calculated rate that depends on further optimisation anyway.

At least the statement about pressure recovery and connectivity is very positive and hopefully will be reflected in the recoverable oil calculation.

Hopefully if what is issued is a CPR these questions will be answered, but what worries me is that what was promised 'soon' was only the Xodus connected oil analysis:-

'HHDL's internal declaration of Portland commerciality is therefore expected shortly following receipt of Xodus' final connected oil volume analysis.'

Willow,

were you here during BB.

The same sort arguments were put forward then as to why it wouldn't fail - UKOG didn't stop testing, had to RNS bad news straight away (but for some reason not good news) spent too much to fail, experts like Nutech and Schlumberger involved - please don't tell me it was a success (though I know some posters will).

However HH has flowed so it would be a big surprise if the KL4 and KL3 didn't flow. What is needed is longer testing which is about to happen, finally.

There was a question about Balcombe 2 earlier. In UKOGs May 2017 Corporate Presentation they give info from Balcombe 1 (slide 14).

-Balcombe-1: 1986, 50 bopd (1 zone, KL4)

There are many reasons the horizontal should be a lot better as they stopped trying after acidisation and it wasn't the primary target.

Should be - Xodus 2015 Portland Sandstone STOIIP Review - wasn't a CPR.

Starbright,

In the Xodus 2026 Portland CPR the depth of the Top Kimmeridge is -683mTVDSS (-2241.35ft TVDSS). TVDSS means True Vertical Depth Sub Sea and the minus sign would signify this was a TVDSS depth below sea level. The Top KL4 is -776.5m (-2547.53ft) and the Top KL3 is -841m (-2758.66ft). The Top Portland was -553m (-1814ft) and the surface was 67m (219ft) above sea level.

The Nutech April 2015 report also has depths for these that are probably MDRKB (Measured Depth {Below} Rotating Kelly Bushing) and are for Top Kimmeridge 756.5m (2482ft) Top KL4 861m (2825ft) and Top KL3 939m (3082ft).

There may be differences between 'picks' for the tops of each layer but the TVDSS should equal TVDRKB + elevation + hieght of RKB above the surface (say 2-3m).

So the figures in the presentation if they are TVDRKB would be 615 - 67 - 3 = 545m converted to TVDSS (Xodus Top Portland -553m)

KL4 840 - 67 - 3 = 770m (Xodus Top KL4 -776.5m)

KL3 900 - 67 - 3 = 830m (Xodus Top KL3 -841m)

These figures seem a little too far apart just to be a 'picking' difference so I'm guessing they are actually rounded figures and are actually true vertical depth below the surface elevation.

The increasing difference between the TVDSS figures (Xodus) and the MDRKB (Nutech) indicates the well is not vertical. Difference Top Kimmeridge is 73m, KL4 85m & KL3 98m.

In the Nutech report the thickness (in the deviated well) of the KL4 is 106ft and KL3 102ft so their true vertical thickness will be less (about 20%) so around 85ft and 81ft.

The true vertical thickness of the Kimmeridge (Xodus) is 461m (1514ft) but is mostly shale.

Jiffy,

You tell me why on 14 June UKOG categorically stated they would use the existing perforations.

Did some flows, then decided to perforate, having not mentioned it a few days earlier in an operational test?

Just looking in before sleep and knew that there had been a more recent statement abut the perforations.

I wonder if the max rate test messed up the 2016 perforations? They don't seem to have rerun it using the mega pump, or was it the same pump?

Goodnight......

Missed this bit for the Portland

'to flow Portland oil from around 35 metres of existing perforation'

same RNS

Jiffybag

Forgive me butting in but the extracts about perforating are from the planning document written last year.

However in the RNS of 14 June 2018 this was stated:-

'Each test will utilise existing perforated zones as per the 2016 test programme. The expected duration of the full flow programme is around 150 days.'

'The two 2018 long term Kimmeridge tests will utilise existing perforations and will access around a 30 metre gross reservoir zone in each of the KL3 and KL4 zones'

Something changed.

Brotherant,

follow Heid's lead, sell on spikes, buy back in when it drops back - seems Heid knew the RNS wasn't all it was cracked up to be - it's a bit like shorting as by selling you're helping too pull the price back but don't mention that, I think the lth like to call it 'top slicing'.