Member Info for Yanis2005

Supposed to be present

Lucan is making fool of us again.

No mention of Andrew Hollis, Technical Director, to answer questions in the conference call. He suppise to be present, according to the previous RNS on 24th June.

I wonder why?

RNS just out but is a reminder about the conference call. No new info. Disgraceful.

The only thing on Balcombe that might help a bit is if the application, which they said will be submitted by end of August, has already been submitted. Apart from that, jam tomorrow will not cut it.

SP which is already suppressed, could fall farther, if nothing tangible comes out of the CC. Technicals do not show the SP as oversold anymore, they have caught up with the fall as I already predicted earlier on.

Don’t expect anything ... if there was something to talk about the RNS would have been out already.

Lol, maybe i should gave kept quiet. Last trade was a 200,000 share sell. Shorter annoyed?

One and a half hours in to the trading session ... 2 trades, 2 sells ... totalling less than 100,000 shares!

Don’t remember this before. As if the 90% drop was not bad enough. Great job Lucan.

YinYang, Doriemus found out after the Angus RNS too
https://www.doriemus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/20190701-Brockham-Kimmeridge-Test-Unsuccessful.pdf

"We await receipt of the analysis Angus have completed in respect of the further works they have carried out on the BR-X4Z well and which they say makes it extremely unlikely that conventional commercial flow can be established from the Kimmeridge layer at Brockham. Upon receipt of that analysis, our technical team will make their own assessment of the situation."
https://investegate.co.uk/alba-min-res-plc--alba-/rns/brockham-update---alba-comment/201906281612079002D/

YinYang, I think you will find that the partners were never consulted.

They were as surprised from the news as we were

George Frangeskides, Alba's Executive Chairman, commented:

"We have now had an opportunity to digest the update on Brockham released earlier today by the Operator, Angus Energy, which we were obliged to release without delay therefore being unable to provide any accompanying commentary."
https://investegate.co.uk/alba-min-res-plc--alba-/rns/brockham-update---alba-comment/201906281612079002D/

YinYang, exactly.

The first para justifies my question to them “Angus Energy (AIM: ANGS) is pleased to announce that after consideration of the recent results of the Brockham work programme, preparatory operations for the second stage will commence on the week of 17th June 2019.”

... after consideration of the recent results of the Brockham work programme preparatory operations for the second stage will commence on the week of 17th June 2019.

By the 3rd of June they have analysed ... assessed the results and found nothing wrong (by implication as they are now proceeding with the “preparatory works). In essence, the well is good to go for testing.

On the 24th of June they reconfirmed this. Up to the 24th of June, the well is good for testing, just preparatory works to improve communication with the fractures.

Less than 4 days later, the well is no good, testing abandoned and in negotiations to sell.

I think they owe shareholders a very good explanation.

YinYang, my point is that Angus published a 2-Stage plan:

Stage 1 - reperforation, water isolation and recompletion.
Stage 2 - bring well test equipment to site, hook it up and commission it, carry out flow/production test.

Both of those stages require permission from the authorities.

It appears that Angus only requested approval for Stage 1 + well suspension.

Where is the approval for Stage 2? Did Angus ever apply for the Stage 2 approval? Have they got one?

My two questions:

1. Decision to abandon well testing
Up until 24th of June Angus was working towards carrying out the long awaited Brockham well test as per published plan, with a small deviation to carry out “preparatory works” in order to optimise communication with the fractures.
The 24th June RNS stated “Further work, preparatory to a well test, is underway as we go to print”.
Can Angus explain how in the following four days whilst doing preparatory works for testing Angus suddenly discovered, without flowing the well, that the well will not be commercial without fracking? On what basis (I.e. technical reason) was the assessment announced on 28th of June made? What prompted Angus to deviate from carrying out preparatory works for testing to assessing the well?

2. Well flow testing Permissions
Angus very clearly stated in published work plans for Brockham and RNSs that well flow testing will be done, categorically, without any doubt.
Documents obtained from OGA via FOI request, show that permissions from the authorities did not cover testing. The permissions are for suspension of the well upon successful recompletion, no testing.
Can Angus explain how they intended to carry out the well test without permission? Or have they a supplementary permission, an amendment that covers testing?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/completion_works_at_brockham#incoming-1378014
Extracts:

“The purpose of this work is to implement a logging program to locate the water interval, re-perforate a small section of the formation, and then isolate the water bearing section with a new completion design. No testing will be undertaken in this proposed operation.”
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/566796/response/1378014/attach/html/4/Brockham%204Z%20Logging%20Re%20Perforation%20Summary%202019%2003%2028.pdf.html

“We have had a WONS application from ANGUS ENERGY WEALD BASIN NO.3 LTD to recomplete the Brockham X4Z well. The objective is to isolate the interpreted water bearing zones, set a bridge plug and re-complete. If successful, the well would be suspended. No well testing will be undertaken in this proposed operation.”
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/566796/response/1378014/attach/html/8/Brockham%20EA%20communication%20Redacted.pdf.html

Turn blue?

11 million shares traded so far today at 1.3 +-0.05 and has not moved.

Size of trades points to shorting very likely continuing. Looks like nothing has changed yet, Lucan's raid on shareholder value continues.

Mirasol,

Am I right in saying that HH produced roughly about 50,000 barrels of oil - approximately half from the kimm and half from Portland? Agreed?

The 25,000 barrels from the Kimm took significantly less time to produce and this tells that the Kimms can flow substantially more than Portland. Why no Kimm CPR? No idea but maybe they are waiting for the additional wells to get a better estimate? Don't forget that they do have a lot of data for Portland and is easier to put the Portland CPR together.

And you guys have you seen this?

https://twitter.com/ruthhayhurst/status/1146497048222584833?s=21

Ukog Bradford Bridge now has a production licence ... go figure. Kimm not flowing without fracking? I don’t think so.

Or , just guessing here, asset stripping?

I do not believe LL is telling us the truth. Very likely they screwed the well up.

https://investegate.co.uk/uk-oil---38--gas-plc--ukog-/rns/horse-hill-1---50-000-barrels-of-oil-production/201906110700037383B/

HH kimm is flowing

investegate.co.uk/uk-oil---38--g…

“ The Portland has now delivered an aggregate total of 25,777 bbl to date, exceeding the 25,094 bbl produced from the deeper Kimmeridge”

25,094 from the kimm.