Member Info for Penguins

Zoom,

don't get excited.

Just because the phrase high capacity linear rod pump was used (quite often actually) what does that mean apart from it sounds good?

If you can't give a reference I can't find any reference to the capacity of the pump used at BB in any RNS.

Anyway it desn't get away from the fact they could drop the rate if it was causing problems or replace the pump - or are you suggesting they kept on doing test after test with too big a pump without realising it was causing problems?

Zoom,

it really isn't good enough to say 'SS did state that the BB pump was capable of several thousand barrels a day'.

Is it in an RNS, an interview, when, where? I don't disbelieve you, just that things can be mis-remembered

The pump at BB looked more or less the same as that at HH.

They managed to produce in half an hour (at a rate up to 470 bopd restricted by pump, although SS is claimed to have said it could produce at 500bopd) 10 barrels of oil, in 2 hours about 35 barrels of oil (414 bopd) and in 6 hours 100 barrels of oil (401 bopd).

The longer they leave it running the lower the daily rate. Although these are described as stable rates the half hour rates seem to be associated with the 2 and 6 hour tests which is odd, and unlike before no mention at all about pressure.

Running the pump for 12 times as long the rate dropped a sixth (17%), and in the longer tests running the pump for three times as long dropped the rate 3%.

This suggests daily long term rates will be nowhere near these 'optimised' test rates.

The tests now being run (apart from a pointless exercise to see if they can produce more barrels in half an hour than 10) will be to see what long term stable rate they can get. This, not the tests carried out so far, will determine whether the Portland can be produced commercially and the reserves attributable to UKOG.

So far so good, but the euphoria over production of small amounts of oil seems a bit over the top.

As for zooms bizarre completely made up post..........where's the evidence, UKOG certainly haven't ever mentioned the pump was too big at BB and have never stated what its max rate was. As for:-

'compounded this with the fluids that effectively sealed every aperture through over sucking.'

Surely they would have just dropped the pump rate?

I suppose now we will see every now and then a post saying that BB was a failure because they used too big a pump, sigh.

BIGHOW,

It actually says:- Celtique Energie Petroleum Ltd holds licenses in the Liassic shale of the Weald basin. This shale is thought to contain commercial quantities of wet gas, condensate and oil.

Nothing about rates and it is a quote from Celtique publication from 2011, so not Schlumberger data.

So either it wasn't a maximum flow test, or HHDL are not following their plan.

The first test sequence will likely include an optimised maximum rate test, prior to choking back the well to provide the steady state flow conditions necessary to determine the Portland oil pool's connected oil volume.

Weald Oilers (pboo) this morning: 'Brilliant Adrian, looks like we are now on the max flow test at maximum 6 strokes a minute.'

Pboo earlier here: The maximum pump rate test is now over, they pumped for 2 to 3 hours at the maximum rate the pump can pump at. Lots of action around the well head and a new bit of kit has arrived. Are we now moving to the Kimmeridge????

Argus,

Are you seriously telling us that the owners of HHDL sit there waiting for HHDL to tell them what's going on and wait for HHDL to,send them a note that they can all release.

The owners will decide what information they want to release, they will be continuously in the loop - this is an important time for all the companies involved, do you not think they will be requesting information constantly?

The decision to release (or not) updates is fully in the owners hands.

This is hilarious,

having been accused of being a deramper for suggesting that not only would the chokes not be opened up during testing, there would be periods of shut in as well and the posters claiming that during testing the production would be 1688 x 150 were wrong we now have the brigade on the board telling everyone how much they knw about testing and don't expect a tanker every few minutes.

Couldn't make it up.

Cement Job was OK - from the annual report:-

'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'

Tony,

Good Evening.

Just the person we need - perhaps you could help with your explanation or even thoughts on the difference between HH and BB with your up to date knowledge from working in oil companies in recent years?

Maybe give pboo or Adrian a call?

I tried googling Broadford Bridge vs Horse Hill and didn't get much help though.

Any thoughts on the OGA update where HH-2 (Portland appraisal well) should be drilled by mid September? I suppose so many deadlines have been missed it'll just be excused.

I agree,

that's a problem, and I don't have access to a PE these days to ask for a theory - but it is a significant difference between the two locations, and it was highlighted by UKOG pre-drill that the location was not within a structure as if it could make a difference to whether the Kimmeridge might flow.

Hi,

There's open fractures at BB - from core, and the sidetrack had more fractures than the original BB hole because (according to UKOG) it was nearer faulting.

Fractures at HH were identified from log data by Nutech as there is no core, so there is a chance it's more prolific at HH than BB.

My view is that the better performance at HH might be due to it being within a structure providing some pressure support (though not due to aquifer or gas cap providing pressure support) not available at BB which was deliberately drilled where there was no structural closure.

Sting,

I've never said BB was a duster - if someone else says that that's their opinion, not mine.

Commerciality is something else, and BB failed the 'test' that followed once the geological concept was 'proved' that had already been assumed by Nutech.

SS Comment, 20 July RNS:

'With the technical data from drilling, core and logs continuing to provide mutually supportive evidence of "proof of geological concept", we will now move on very shortly, via a comprehensive extended flow testing programme, to test the concept that oil can flow to surface from the KL0-KL4 at commercial rates and volumes, the litmus test for any oil company.
'
All the things you suggest doing would need to be tested (especially your special stimulating).

I'm sure Conoco Phillips, Exxon, Chevron and Total threw the kitchen sink at the Baltic Basin shale gas play, but having spent hundreds of millions of dollars gave up and exited.

Willow,

BB - nothing wrong with the mud, nothing wrong with the cement job (according to UKOG), KL5 freshly perforated but didn't flow without pump, and flowed mostly spent acid with some oil.

Nothing special about the way HH was drilled or tested.

So why the difference, there must be one, whether it's fatal to BB ultimately flowing commercially we can't ascertain on the data released, but (as I've said before) the relinquishment of the PEDL to the south of the BB licence area does not provide an awful lot of reassurance.

Ramocart,

where have I ever said I want UKOG to fail?

I just don't think 'success' will be the same as others on this board expect, as I said in a recent post this isn't a horse race where you can't take your winnings if your horse leads through half the race and then falls over (though maybe these days you can - I don't bet on horses).

It's an opinion based very strongly on what UKOG (and other oil cos) have published.

Maybe I'll miss out on future riches but I certainly won't be hanging around for 5 to 10 years in the hope it all works out, and I don't suppose many of the professed lth will either.

It's a fantasy.

A simple answer (buy above mid point, sell below, don't know on the mid point) to a stupid question (what was that trade?) when buys and sells can both be above or below the mid point.

A while ago the spread was 2 - 2.05, trades were going through at around 2.05, and others at around 2.03 all reported as buys. I'd suggest that at least most of the 2.03 level trades were actually sells.

Accurate reporting would be nice but not likely to happen.

As for MMs manipulation - yes late reported sales and the above manipulation of the spread to deceive, but holding the price down etc, no - it's a market place if there's a sentiment to sell the price will drop, and vice versa. Despite posts to the contrary their general aim is to balance buys vs sells and not to be left holding shares at the end of the day as getting it wrong could be costly, and gambling isn't their business model.

It was 4.5bn resources, not OIP

….and the assets were already producing 190,000 boe net to BHP (the seller), with lots (thousands) of drilling locations (gross) across 3 basins.

Even with all those production facilities in place, ease of drilling in the US, current production of 190,00boe, the value per resource barrel was less than £2.

I wouldn't do the calculation if I were you

Wrong thread starbright - apologies

made the mistake I'm accusing you of

Once again apologies.

Starbright,

yet again you jump in without looking at what I was commenting on, which is nothing to do with the tax treatment of investors in UKOG.

Which is the statement that zoom keeps making that there won't be any tankers at HH until after UKOGs change from investment to operating company, which zoom keeps telling us is to do with UKOGs tax.

Zoom,

I'm still not understanding how what day HHDL sells oil means it will be treated differently in UKOGs balance sheet when finally money starts flowing the other way between HHDL and it's shareholders.

The company that will reap any benefits from O&G taxation rules will be HHDL as the company that is actually producing oil.

Argus,

I certainly have never said there's no oil.

I did follow the company line prior to the 2016 test which was very negative, expecting to have to swab to get a sample of Kimmeridge oil. They were wrong I was wrong.

Unfortunately pre May posts are no longer available for UKOG so you'll have to believe me but while all and sundry were following the DL ramp of opening the chokes and the twitter 1688bopd times 150 days meant loads of money coming in I was pointing out that the testing would probably involve reduced chokes and shut in periods. I even did a prediction that less than 20,000bbls of oil would be produced during the test, and that would depend on the KL4 not fizzing out.

Tables seem to have turned and the very same guys who were claiming open chokes and 1688 bopd with fleets of tankers during the ewt are now saying what I said when I was supposedly deramping.

I tell it how I see it, if you don't like it filter me, but there seem to be very few posters on here who have actually seemed to have read ore than a few RNS in full.

If you want to spend all day reading what the SP is, what someone guesses it will be in the future, how much they like SS I'm sure my posts are an irritation. As I said in a post on Monday: posters on here rejoicing in a rise in the SP aren't thinking of buying, they just want others to.