Member Info for Penguins

If you read my pst you would see that I pointed out that the 14 June 2018 RNS post dates the planning application.

So presumably at that point they had decided they didn't need to reperforate (or else why say it?), just as they decided not to use a workover rig.

The planning application probably covered every pssibility - what we don't know is why they have decided to (lets say) call upon the perforating option.

read this somewhere:-

From RNS 14 June, OGA Grants Approval for EWT Programme:-

'Each test will utilise existing perforated zones as per the 2016 test programme.'

Which certainly postdates the Planning Permission information which incidentally says they will use a workover rig.

So definitely a change of plan, but as it wasn't mentioned last Friday how would they have known in June. Let's hope it's for a good reason.

Well, as you like RNS the last RNS (only last Friday) said 2 slightly different things about what was happening next:-

'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.'

or / and

'Forward EWT Plans

Following a planned further short restricted flow period and pressure build up test, flow will be further optimised to determine the well's sustainable long-term production rate and to test whether the well can recover a commercially viable volume of oil.'

So after this RNS (and including Friday) they carried on with operations for about 3.5 days.

If on Friday having said they needed:-

a short flow period and pbu, flow optimisation necessary to determine the maximum sustainable long-term flow rate and / or determine the well's sustainable long-term production rate, and a lengthy stabilised flow period to test if the well accesses a commercially viable oil volume

Would they have enough data by Monday afternoon to go on to the Kimmeridge, especially if a larger capacity pump has been sourced and has been mobilised to site for possible use during the remainder of the Portland test sequence.

Mind you they didn't mention they were thinking of perforating either, so in reality despite knowing what equipment is on site we'll have to wait to be told what exactly HHDL is doing with it - everything else is just a guess, some more educated than others.

Boyzee,

If you were a cynic you might think that they needed to do a workover on the well for some reason anyway. The heater has been used quite a lot and that could be for a hot oil treatment - circulating hot oil down the well to remove wax.

Maybe there's an issue that requires a workover - seemed to be a lot of kit turning up (expense) just to see how fast the well could go in half an hour.

But as some have said maybe it will help with all rates.

Anyway just a musing. Let's see those thousands of barrels a day coming up from the depths, tankers lining the streets, all is going well so far, and the company has not told us any different.

ZPLA,

You may believe AIM companies never try to bury bad news with good.

I don't.

This from UKOG is a pretty good example:-

15/11/2017, £10M Financing and BB-1z Optimised Flow Testing.

Of course everything I post in certain individuals' eyes is agenda driven, and if that's how they see it - well tough.

If you think the announcement was publicised enough, that's your view, it isn't mine - it was RNS'd as required but buried as deeply as they could even to the extent of not mentioning it in the RNS title.

Meanwhile DL was ramping how the Kimmeridge play extended to Bognor because of the Lidsey oil sample from the Kimmerdige (PEDL233 was between BB and Lidsey).

Now that's an agenda.

Sneaked into the RNS 9 July, didn't get mentioned in the title even 'Corporate Update: Change of AIM Trading Status':-

PEDL233 Licence Update

As previously reported in the Company's unaudited results for the six-month period ended 31 March 2018, we highlighted that the initial term on PEDL233 was set to expire on 30 June 2018. The Oil and Gas Authority has now confirmed the licence has now lapsed.

Both UKOG and the licence's operator, IGas Energy Enterprise Limited, concluded that the asset offered low commercial potential together with significant future drilling and production planning consent issues related to its location in the South Downs National Park. This asset ranked low in UKOG's investment portfolio. No drilling activities or material expenditure was allocated to this asset over the next 18 months.

nhawan,

I do really think they will test the Kimmeridge without a pump.

Pumping the Kimmeridge may sound a great idea but perhaps 'learnings' (I hate that construct) from BB (and the 2016 tests at HH) have suggested that the reservoir needs to be treated with a measure of TLC.

I suspect many might have missed this gem from the Annual Report and Accounts 2017 about BB testing:-

'As to whether these fractures remained fully or partly open during the necessary pressure draw-downs following acidisation used during testing is currently under investigation.'

Pumping works by causing a larger pressure drop in the well at reservoir level than would occur during 'free flow' - ie effectively a pressure drawdown - and they really don't want the fractures to close up as the only way of reopening them is probably fracking..

If (and I say if) this is an issue at HH then maybe pumping the Kimmeridge might be something they would be very wary of doing, especially as the well has happily free flowed..

The KL4 test was initiated by pumping at 'in excess of 700bopd' (which was stopped after 40 minutes) and then achieved a steady free flow of just over 900 bopd with an open (1 inch) choke for 4 hours. The subsequent test also using a 1 inch choke didn't stabilise - was this because the choke was allowing too fast a flow which caused an issue with the reservoir?

UKOG have never commented on this second flow and have only ever mentioned it once (in the RNS for that flow).

Pboo,

Interesting the instantaneous is mentioned in the 'headline' bold text but not in the body of the RNS. I don't pay much attention to the stuff in bold, the main body of the RNS has far more detail, but a good spot. By the way don't shout. I can read and even understand text without it being capitalized

An inconsistency. Are they saying that the rates mentioned only happened very briefly, just for a moment. In the body of the RNS what I pasted is what's written ie no instantaneous.

Spot the difference:-

Maximum instantaneous half-hourly pumped rates of 441 and 470 bopd.

with associated maximum half hourly pumped rates of 441 and 470 bopd.

So those rates weren"t even sustained for half an hour, though why mention half an hour?

Yet another RNS designed to obfuscate.

Willow,

I was going to give a long answer but instead I'll repeat something I put in a reply to Redheadedrager (17 July 2018):-

'do you think I would be monitoring the board and SP to understand the mood etc if I didn't hold?

Unlike a horse race you don't have to wait to see if your horse wins or loses.'


If you read through my posts (boring I know) most are responding to errors, misconceptions or misleading posts.

Just because you (and lots of others) want something to happen, believe it should happen it's not the only narrative or strategy, but I'm not a shorter - I'd be rich by now, why risk anything where there's only a small upside, nor a swampy - do my views really come across as a swampy. I replied before to free he'd be surprised.

I ended up posting too much again.

G'nite

I'm also puzzled why in a longer test a bigger pump would make any difference, but we shall see. Obviously in the shorter test the 470 was an equipment limit but it also tested at 441bopd so I wonder how much more the reservoir can give?

Another thing puzzling me a bit is the statement in the last RNS which seemed to imply the half hour maximum flow tests were part of the longer 2 and 6 hour tests:-

'Stable implied daily pumped rates of 401 and 414 bopd of dry 36 API oil were recorded over two periods of 6 and 2 hours, respectively, with associated maximum half hourly pumped rates of 441 and 470 bopd.'

The word 'associated' is puzzling. If these tests were seperate why use the word associated, but if they were during the longer tests then they weren't stable flow rates. Were they tacked on to the start or finish of each? - though Tony13579 says they timed the tests to 6 then 2 hours with an hour in between.

As for the next pump and last pump don't know, do we know what pump was being used, except it could produce 500bopd according to SS (according to free), but limited production to 470 (which was about what we were previously told).

The tripping is not so slick using a crane, the time vs cost against a workover rig makes sense so we'll see how fast it goes.

As for the CPR tests - I'm sure they've been planned to obtain the necessary data, as I said earlier I don't expect much news from those tests - ie nothing to add to your comment.

btw,

Last night I gave a link to a seismic section with a short explanation (it was late). This line could be through the fault that has shifted (if that's what caused the tremors), it was about 4km away from HH-1. Just to clarify, as some comments after seemed to think my post was negative, this fault wasn't one going near the HH well or even going through the structure, it died out before reaching HH - so unlikely to have anything to do with HH. Unfortunately I didn't give a full explanation expecting a bit of understanding, I was wrong.

is used during drilling and workover operations.

Presumably they are going to remove the downhole equipment and then put in the new downhole part of the pump equipment.

Possibly a few days before the new pump is installed on the well head, takes a while to withdraw all that pipe and then reinsert it.

If they then run a new max rate test maybe a result next week, or maybe they'll run the tests for the CPR then the max rate test. Not sure how much they might tell us about the CPR tests though as they are for a specific purpose and not necessarily for public consumption.

No it's not an exportable amount, and it was only associated with the high rate short term tests. As production rates are expected to be less the gas produced will be less.

As I've previously pointed out Godley Bridge had a gas rate test of over 1mmscfs/d and they haven't developed it

It will be more of a nuisance in that they will have to install a generator and connect to the national grid if Brockham is anything to go by.

and ZPLA it's 41,000 cubic feet, not cubic metres so per annum that's about 15,000,000 cu ft per year, so average house using 2000 cubic metres = about 60,000 cubic feet so about 250 houses worth of gas a year.

and Jiffy, imperial meters measure in 100cu ft amounts (I have one) so worth retail £366 per day.

Actually it's page 29 of the CPR, 41 was anther mre local map.

Oops

Strangely I have.

The most likely culprit is (if it is caused by movement on a fault):-

Look at the map on page 41 of the Xodus CPR - there is a fault in the SW corner of the map (bottom left).

This shows the location of the fault at Portland level. As this fault is downthrown to the south at depth it is to the south of this line - as mapped it dies out in the general area to the north of Russ Hill.

The fault (solid black line) is shown crossing a seismic line (TWLD-90-15) which is available to view on UKOGL (UK Onshore Geophysical Library - nothing to do with UKOG).

https://ukogl.org.uk/map/php/seismic.php?type=colour&line=17044&name=TWLD-90-15

If you look at this line the fault in question sits between 1540 and 1690 (the numbers at the top of the seismic section, the lower of the 2 rows). South is to the left on this line. You'll have to scroll to the right to get to the right bit of the seismic.

It is the break (disturbance) in the data that runs at about 30 degrees from near the top of the seismic data and down to the left.

chitty,

yes, but not necessarily in that order of testing as 2 and 6 hour tests flowed at 414 and 401 respectively would also be grammatically correct.

btw

Last Friday's RNS was like buying a car for it's mpg and being told by the salesman that it can go 25% faster than before and it might go even faster, but they have has no idea what it's mpg is yet. It would be interesting but you'd wait to find out it's mpg.

Collins Dictionary

Respectively means in the same order as the items that you have just mentioned.

ie only in the same order as the items mentioned.

Oxford 'living' dictionary:-

Separately or individually and in the order already mentioned (used when enumerating two or more items or facts that refer back to a previous statement)

From your dictionary: www.dictionary.com

1) in precisely the order given; sequentially.

2) (of two or more things, with reference to two or more things previously mentioned) referring or applying to in a parallel or sequential way:

The definition you have selected (out of the 2 offered - I wonder why) only applies with regard to a single set of things/numbers.

The definition for more than one set of things is that the second set is only in the same order as the items mentioned previously, which may not be the order in which things have happened.

Pboo,

I beg to differ.

Respectively means in the same order, not performed in that order. ie in 2 (or more) lists of numbers (or anything) the first number in the first list is associated with the first number in the second list, and so on.

For all we knew they were just ordering then in size

So they are just saying the 6 hour test flowed at 401 and the 2 hour test at 414.

If you are certain that what you saw was these tests being carried out then fine but this information has not been RNS'd - you happen to know that was the order.

Just looking quickly at press reports they give a depth of 1km and a location of Russ Hill for the latest tremor (I'm sure earlier press reports put it deeper but I did say from memory)

The epicentre is where the earthquake originates below ground, looking at recent reports a depth of 1km was given but the only levels being worked on in 2018 have been the Portland which is much shallower than that, and then only at Brockham except for the last few weeks where HH has been flowed.

The 'cluster' since April is to the west of HH and from the BGS text (below) the original estimates of depth and exact location were probably inaccurate because of the distance to the monitoring stations.

'For the first earthquakes the closest sensors were over 60km away leading to large uncertainties about the location and particularly their depth.'

The latest tremor data is from the newly installed BGS equipment so you would hope the location and depth is fairly accurate. Russ Hill is 4 kilometres away from Horse Hill so this just can't be anything to do with HH (or Brockham which is even further away).

If I were a betting man I'd wager that all these tremors are associated with a single or cluster of faults in a fairly small area, with small shifts occurring over time.

Hopefully (!) there will be a few more which the BGS can record and be more definitive about the cause.

Pboo,

Try and get facts right on your twitter feed.

The well flowed at 41000 cubic feet. 41000 cubic metres is 1.2 million cubic feet. And could you specify where it gives the order the tests were performed. It isn't in the UKOG RNS.

As for the earthquakes the subsurface epicentre is way deeper than the Kimmeridge (from memory of the reports). Why does anyone give this subject oxygen.

Sting69,

'Week after next we will see declaration of commerciality'

As they are only now into the information gathering required for the CPR so this is not going to happen that fast, CPRs take time. Of course UKOG might make noises about commercial flow rates but it's the CPR that matters.

Apart from sentiment how does the Portland 'underpin' a 2p share price. HH is a limited volume trap with OIP of 30mmbbls in the Portland of which UKOG have about 10mmbbls OIP, with contingent resources of 500,000 bbls currently that should become reserves following the ewt. Even at full OP this is only worth about $35mm.

You do not seem to understand that the Portland is not a target except in localised traps eg Holmwood, Brockham so:-

'when the real truth I am sure they know is that this is perforation of a vertical well we havent even put a side track in or indeed looked at lots more wells across our licencences btringing potential to several thousand or tens of over the portland.'

This is not the 'real truth'. I suggest you read the Xodus CPR and understand their estimation is that 3 wells (best case) would drain the structure. The details are in the CPR. It may be upgraded following the ewt but their initial rate is 350 bopd (best case) per well.

I'd also contend that technology has not contributed to the Portland (nor Kimmeridge) flow rates, they drilled HH, cased it, went away for a year, then perforated it, acidised it and then flowed it in 2016 either by pump or not, same as they would have done - certainly in the 80's. Maybe fracking in the future may make a difference (despite my view that the Weald companies stating they won't frack is more than a sop to local opinion) but nothing done so far at HH is particularly technologically advanced.

So to me what's different is the location of HH - and BB has not denied that possibility.

So UKOG fail - very unlikely as regardless of whether the Kimmeridge succeeds the likelihood is the Portland will be commercial and UKOG has the funds to continue for a while to bring it to production.