Member Info for Penguins

Heid,

ha ha

I know the preference on this board is for stuff just made up but unfortunately what actually decides what happens is reality.

We'll see what's fantasy and

Zoom,

They do not need any time at all following a flow test to give the result of the test in terms of flow rate, in 2016 they were RNSing the results the next morning (RNS 16th February, 'Flow commenced at around 10.00am GMT yesterday.')

This was put about during BB flow testing to explain why the pump was pumping but UKG wasn't RNSing any flow test results.

For more in depth analysis (ie estimating connected volume etc) it will take weeks/months depending on the complexity of the reservoir, and only when all the flow rate tests of the Portland are complete can all the data be input into any reservir modelling.

As for steady state flow tests 96 hours is the limit that the OGA allow for flow testing without specific permission, it isn't the length an extended flow test has to be, nor any requirement by the OGA regarding 'qualifying' (whatever that means) the Portland.

As for 360 to 400 bopd, the pump seems to be running at just over one stroke a minute (FOTH this morning) - the maximum rate of the previous pump was about 6 strokes a minute and produced up to 470 bopd - even if the pump has double capacity (which is unlikely) then that would be about 150 bopd.

You just tweeted this:-

'#UKOG LSE Penguins poster . S******. Did you know Marxwells Wood was given a production licence without planning permission. Discuss.'

I'm afraid you are showing your ignorance. The Markwells Wood PEDLwas moved into the third term but UKOG don't have FDP approval. The third term is intended for production but this doesn't require planning permission for the licence to be moved into.

Problem is you believed the Drill or Drop assessment, but every term of a PEDL would allow production.

'While the initial term is associated with a work programme of exploration work that must be completed if the licence is to continue into a second term, the licensee has the right to start production during the initial term, if the licensee can move quickly enough, subject to normal regulatory controls.'

Williow,

What HHDL will require is FDP (Field Development Plan) approval. The licence they have is a PEDL (and here's an extract from the OGA web site):- 'Other prefixes (e.g. PEDL001, EXL001, PL001, ML001) indicate a Landward Production Licence of various vintages'

I post on this every now and then, here's an extract from my post of 11 August.

'The development will be authorised once the OGA is satisfied that the FDP meets its requirements.

The OGA will require:

a Board letter confirming scope of insurance or availability of necessary funds for any required remedial work;

a Board letter confirming availability of planning permission and absence of any on-going planning disputes

The OGA's approval will cover both the construction of the facilities and other infrastructure, and the production of hydrocarbons from the field.'

SO PP needs to sorted before FDP approval is sought - though HHDL will be in ongoing talks with the OGA whilst producing the FDP ensuring a smooth path once PP is granted so it should be quick once the PP hurdle has been successfully 'jumped'.

Once the FDP for the Portland is in place another layer can be added (eg Kimmeridge) by an addendum.

Rodders,

To quote an earlier post of yours 'Maybe stay on topic with items worthy of real discussion rather than posting libellous horse dung.'

But unfortunately I don't resort to childish namecalling, but what's this bit of your post about? 'tell me in which RNS has SS ever said that gas was a game changer and of commercial value?'

I'm not sure why you want me to tell you this because I've never said that SS ever did? If you want to butt into a discussion at least read the thread.

ZPLA,

have a good trip.

But it seems Angus was required to install gas to wire at Brockham - as OGA does expect gas wastage to be kept to a minimum.

Angus 22 sept RNS: 'the Company has completed and submitted amendments to its FDP Addendum after consultation with the Oil & Gas Authority ("OGA") to include provisions for on-site power generation.'

and the OGA states:

The OGA controls gas emissions by requiring licensees to apply for consent to flare or vent gas emitted by their fields. The main purpose of this requirement is to ensure that gas is conserved where possible by avoiding unnecessary wastage.

ZPLA,

really.

Actually I posted 'The volumes of associated gas produced are not significant and will be more of a nuisance than a major benefit as they won't be allowed to continue flaring in production.'

Remember this was a reply to a poster who was claiming that ' big gas finds recently other than HH' which was implying that the gas at HH was a 'big gas find, which it wasn't.

Yes there will be cashflow from the gas to power but kit needs to be purchased and connected to the grid which adds cost and possibly time before oil production can start.

So to me it is a nuisance, and could even restrict oil production as the generating kit will need to be right sized so no gas is flared.

British Gas that sells gas in the UK is the trading name of Centrica.

BG which was split off from British Gas was taken out by Shell.

The volumes of associated gas produced are not significant and will be more of a nuisance than a major benefit as they won't be allowed to continue flaring in production.

Willow,

I posted this last week, in a longer post. I was pointing out that there are things that sound good, and things that are important. The maximum flow test sounds good but nowhere has the importance of them been explained whereas the tests they are delaying, the lengthy stabilised flow tests are important.

SS has stated what the prime goal of the ewts is (RNS 27 June):-

'the 2018 EWT's prime goal is to confirm that the wellbore is connected to a commercially viable oil volume within one or more of the three zones.'

So not establishing maximum flow rates.

and how this is calculated (18 July RNS):-

'prior to choking back the well to provide the steady state flow conditions necessary to determine the Portland oil pool's connected oil volume.'

so not using maximum rate flow tests.

and when will these be performed (3 Aug RNS):-

'Forward extended well test ("EWT") programme includes flow optimisation necessary to determine the maximum sustain4able long-term flow rate and a lengthy stabilised flow period to test if the well accesses a commercially viable oil volume.'

Dorking,

surely they will have 'killed' the well again for the workover?

And there is no indication that they plan to co-mingle production. These are 2 very different reservoirs.

Morocco,

truce over so soon.

Yesterday I only looked at recent posts - but then thought hmmm.

July 3rd and 4th was an interesting time. Even posting helpful advice on this board:-

UKOG hmmm 4 Jul '18

look at your mcap compared to much larger "producing" companies, it is insane and every placing makes it worse.............'

Meanwhile on ANGS board:-

ANGS RE: Huge rise into finish imo 3 Jul '18

ukog like playing poker blind! I hate to think of the money some suckers lose money over there, such wild swings again today had to put out RNS for price monitoring, what on no news, there are some sharp operators in that share fleecing the unsuspecting. Then the suckers try to get their money back by gambling again, self feeding frenzy, steer well clear unless you got money to lose, go to casino put on red or black and watch it come up green lol doh!'

Anyway I have this to say to you (from your post 4 July):- 'when I stop getting accused of telling porkies, deramping etc I will stop however I have the right to post anywhere and don't need self appointed monitors telling me otherwise.'

Brotherant,

Tony has no idea if the well is ready for the pump.

The specialised BOP for the slickline (or wireline) operations was still there at 15:10, are there are more workover operations utilising it to come, if it gets removed there may be other operations to come - the perforating gun was a surprise.

Has acidizing been done post perforating? No waste tanker seen (and the bogs need emptying anyway).

Is the downhole part of the pump been put in the well? Could it have been in the well while the recent operations were underway or will they have to remove everything from the well again to put it in - might depend on what they were doing.

A lot of unknowns that even watching the site can't answer, or maybe haven't been seen.

Yesterday morning pboo posted:-

'We think the pump will be back on later today or by tomorrow morning.'

morocco,

You don't know who the fool is and you assume it's other poster's here.

No I don't think other poster's are fools.

anyway try this:

https://twitter.com/adrianwfire

otherwise known as The Fool on the Hill.

He's very complimentary about me.

You need to see his twitter feed as he and 2 others tweet useful pictures and videos.

Surely in the last few days (and your more extensive time on the Angus board) you have noticed mention of these guys?

Brotherant,

whoa,

I don't spend all day on the board, pop in every now and then.

I mentioned this in a post yesterday 10:53 but I'll be specific.

I would expect everything to be taken out of the well prior to the Kimmerdige test anyway. There's a retrievable plug above the Kimmeridge that would need to be removed and at that point perforating could be done.

So no time saving later on, and would delay the Portland testing.

Whether that means they haven't perforated the Kimmeridge...……….

morocco,

the reason my posts contain, often short and precise, copy and pastes is it demonstrates where I am getting the information from, at least I don't claim I heard it somewhere, and as a lot of my pastes come from official UKOG sources I'm sure they would be flattered to know you think they are BS. To think I'm baffling readers with long winded replies full of UKOG BS.

Perhaps I'm too used to writing reports that need to be factually correct, rather than claiming some divine knowledge of what the SP will be in a weeks time or when an RNS will turn up.

What exactly in my post is non factual and negative? Is the fact that what is really needed is lengthy stabilised flow to establish commercially connected volumes a negative - it's what UKOG have said, but it seems to have been forgotten in all the excitement about a bigger pump being needed for the maximum rate test, and certainly I haven't seen it mentioned in posts here.

This business of negative slant depends on your viewpoint.

Your balanced(?) view is...…..

As for pot, kettle, we can all look at a poster's history, oh the hypocrisy

I only had to go back to your ever so informative post at 8:48 today! complete take from, but no credit given to,:-

http://blog.delphianballistics.com/2014/10/what-is-well-perforating/

........and if you want t know if I hold you'll have to read a few more of my posts.

I see you've got the fool's seal of approval for your post, which says it all.

Maccy,

having previously pointed out the UKOG statements on the drilling mud to you I'm surprised you return to the drilling mud as an excuse, here's my previous reply to you just in case you forgot:-

Maccy,

Vonk (Angus Energy, no involvement in BB) said it was the drilling mud, but UKOG said (annual report and accounts 2017, 4th page of the pdf)-

'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).'

I'd believe a company RNS rather than a Vonk / Lenigas attempt at damage limitation (to their Kimmeridge acreage).

**********************************

As for maturity there is a difference between what's important in an RNS and what sounds good.

The maximum flow rates are yet another example - what the well is capable of delivering in half an hour has little bearing on future production forecasts, but they sound good.

In fact SS has stated what the prime goal of the ewts is (RNS 27 June):-

'the 2018 EWT's prime goal is to confirm that the wellbore is connected to a commercially viable oil volume within one or more of the three zones.'

So not establishing maximum flow rates.

and how this is calculated (18 July RNS):-

'prior to choking back the well to provide the steady state flow conditions necessary to determine the Portland oil pool's connected oil volume.'

so not using maximum rate flow tests.

and when will these be performed (3 Aug RNS):-

'Forward extended well test ("EWT") programme includes flow optimisation necessary to determine the maximum sustainable long-term flow rate and a lengthy stabilised flow period to test if the well accesses a commercially viable oil volume.'

so delayed while performing these maximum flow rate tests.

So after this RNS was written (evening before?), and the pump coming off there was insufficient time for further flow optimisation and the lengthy stabilised flow period to be performed, especially as they are (probably) installing a bigger pump following whatever workver operations they have been up to.

So the lengthy tests should be performed when the well is returned to testing operations. Note should!!!

Dorkingman,

whilst your volume is about right the actual amount exported from Portland and Kimmerdige was 1940bbls (21 March 2016 RNS), but about 750bbls of that was from the Kimmeridge calculated from the 4 Kimmeridge flow test RNS (Flow rate x flow time in hours / 24) as details of all the Prtland tests weren't published.

So around 1200bbls, not significantly different from your number.

As 5 tankers were seen the number of stealth tankers could be 1 upwards (to any number you want) or else there's about 200 bbls still on site.

Lyn etc.,

Even that's not a certainty:-

'has been mobilised to site for possible use during the remainder of the Portland test sequence'.

Possible use.

Maybe they weren't sure whether they would need or want to do more perforating of the Portland and would only replace the pump if they did?

The RNS was a short time before they must have ordered the perforating gun which wasn't mentioned and despite the 'everything we see is good news' brigade no one knows what or why they are doing with it.

Whilst seeing what's happening above ground is interesting there is massive scope for both misunderstanding and misleading as despite their new found knowledge their ability to correctly interpret what was actually happening was exposed on many occasions during the BB testing where according to them oil was being pumped and oil tankers about to visit throughout.

Now there's hints from free that he thinks they are perforating the Kimmeridge (Aug 9). But there's no reason to do that now unless they are abandoning the Portland test as all equipment will be removed from the hole prior to the Kimmeridge tests so even easier to perforate the Kimmeridge then.

Anyway before perforating more Kimmeridge it would be prudent to make sure the best bits (those already perforated) work. As for 1400ft of Kimmeridge they need to make sure the couple of hundred feet or so of micrites work before trying the shales which I seem to remember didn't flow too well at BB.

At the time of re-admission to AIM there were 30,555,555 @ 0.9p issued to WH Ireland:-

Page 192 details of the warrants.

Waste Management Plan (rev 50.

Diagram page 12 of 90.

9 5/8

Willow,

It can be anything you want it to be.

Some will look more foolish than others though.