Member Info for pijoe1212

lol....i have been choosing my words carefully on here for some years.....

explanations to the question i posed back then and the responses:

"Difference between hh and bb- why the Kimm flowed at hh but not at bb?

i have added a bit more to make it clear (in the absence of the prior chain of posts):

1. Hh kimm has local fracturing of the kimm significantly greater than bb ( natural frack job over and above regional fracturing due to presence of the fault).

2. Localised pressure support at hh present due to hh specific trapping mechanism

We know it is not anything to do with cementing ( cpr and admission doc makes this clear even if the rns’s at the time says overwise). We also know the drilling fluids have little impact ( as above)"

i am very surprised to see the posts about perf gun..based on the evidence ukog have put in the public domain, the portland testing will be completed prior to kimm testing and the portland results would be issued on portland testing completion. so we can take as read the portland is still in testing? so why the perf gun AFTER max flow rate tests?..one explanation (but not the only one) is the localised fractures were more localised than expected..um that would start me worrying..but as always the truth will be reviled ..at some point.

production through WF would of course make sense and RBD have guided towards this. i would not assume that would make perenco the (only) potential buyer. WF have a number of partners and more importantly OGA would likely encourage 3rd party access if necessary.

OK, it's quite possible that people like BP and Shell have got one or two people working on the feasability of buying into GLA / GWA or even buying them outright, working up a tentative development plan, and so on.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i would be very surprised if both and a few more have not worked up outline plans based on an eps success case.

what a funny post PDMSPiper...i am long and i am sure ricfle / ad / genghis are also. we also have a shared background (in hur) where we have all made good money, aided i would suggest by open discussion of upsides and downsides. not always comfortable discussion but often worthwhile.

aduk

to be fair to PDMSPiper he did correct his typo of wick to wytch, but only after the idea of a what a c. 300 mile horizontal well would look like and i was typing......

the NPPF changes are not fundamentally important (and i state this as someone now working on such applications). what i am saying is simple. wytch farm has a long established track record of working with the planning authority and for very good reason perrenco will want this to continue. planning would become more of a problem if local views are ignored when they do not need to be. Genghis has highlighted some specific influencer type's who i know as a fact have been active (recently retired to the upper house, and i am sure genghis knows exactly who i mean).

The NPPF policy means that Bournemouth Council will be directed by Gov to prioritize planning consents for the Colter drill from Wytch because energy assets are of national importance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

BC are a statutory consultee only. DCC are the planning authority..i have stated to you what the process is and evidenced to you just one example of why i know what i am talking about and hence why you know sfa related to planning.

But the planning experts here were saying that the 2nd onshore phase of Colter, drilled from Wick would be totally in the gift of the council to grant a go ahead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

perhaps ADUK could advise us on the well design of that remarkable drill?

http://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/transcripts/r-oao-esmond-jenkins-v-gloucestershire-county-council-and-ors

just in case anyone is interested....

that is a change to the NPPF. that is guidance to planning authorities on policy. the recent change is to emphasis the positive benefits of mineral extraction. it does not change the process whats so ever, which will follow the outline i posted earlier.
there is a landmark case (Jenkins "v" GCC, 2012), which over turned a minerals consent. it is interesting for two reasons to me - one i was involved and two "jenkins" (esmond) was a local councillor who took is own planning authority to court and won...

this is all a bit o/t...i also spent much time working onshore and offshore as an engineer before moving into wider roles. i think you will find the facts on the poulton site are: planning application made- refused; appeal to planning inspectorate made; minster called in the decision; minster approved; JR application by objectors refused. so consent stands. key thing is (and i see so many posters on these BB's get this wrong!), the application followed normal process for any planning application in the UK. there is nothing special in uk planning related to oil extraction (or fracking). the relevance to rbd is only that the operator will not want to *iss-off DCC!

SS. that is my clear understanding also.

Perenco have maintained the strategy BP worked to of working with DCC proactively - that is why they get consents granted (including the big one in 2013 of extension of life and the associated 30+ planning applications) without getting major objections. Corallian are clearly alive to the issue (hence the clear statements about not drilling in the tourist season). it is also clear the extension to 2037 is material to the success case value of colter.

i am not your buddy (i hate that phrase). i think you will find that DCC are the planning authority for any land based operations, including those at wytch farm (as it is mineral extraction). part of my role for DCC until i relinquished the appointment in 2015 was developing specific strategy and planning policy and putting aspects to minsters to achieve change in national regulations. suggest you wind your neck in on such matters as you clearly know SFA.

as someone who was involved with wytch farm planning consents (1988-1990) and as someone who was retained as an engineering discipline adviser to DCC for 12 years (2003 - 2015), i can assure you that you have no idea what you are talking about.

your recent posts aimed at ricfle are in my view somewhat childish. i (and others) have had the benefit of reading his posts for sometime. while i think it is fair to say many have disagreed with him on occasions, including me, i would suggest his grasp of an investment case should not be under estimated. total bulls hit artist as you put it he is not.

PDMS. you are correct that the local authorities do not have jurisdiction over off shore well consents. but make no mistake the local authorities and the local mp's (and former mp's) have influence and have used it in this instance. the success case proposal is to drill from land, which will need planning consents etc. no operator would seek to do anything but accommodate local constraints when they can. I understand local opinion was voiced in a clear and coordinated way that drilling during the tourist season was not welcome (i think the co have also confirmed this in one of the many vidoes..)

gggg21. there is no rule that stops anyone claiming to be an insider when they are not (except market abuse regs but i very much doubt aim regulation / fca would action that against a pi who kept their head down). anyone who is not an insider can trade as they wish.

in the alternative, pump and sell (while not posting as that would be even more immoral)

As I am sure many will recall I was invested here prior to the 7e deal. I called the 7e deal for what it is ( a massive punt on the Nigerian legal system and pjt ability to finalise a deal). Meanwhile 4 out of 4 drill successes.

What would have the fortunes of shareholders have been if the bod had not gone off chasing a bunch of 2nd rate (gas) assests in Nigeria? Such a shame as the reason I invested ( and I suspect most others) has been vindicated.