Member Info for ZYX098

Good call on the Strait of Gibraltar - had forgotten that one.

The Dardanelles Strait is another. That's become so crowded that Turkey now won't approve any oil pipeline that terminates in the Black Sea or Sea of Marmara, and has effectively limited Tanker traffic through the Dardanelles and the Bosphorous for the same reason.

Pboo,

You stated;

"Bullying a banned poster is wrong and any bullying is wrong"

I agree any bullying is wrong, but here's the challenge for you;

Can you show any post by any of the Realists where they have bullied Adrian?

Don't forget, the reason Adrian has a lifetime ban from the LSE (and therefore he shouldn't be on here at all) is that he repeatedly threatened and abused other posters - and continues to do so, which is what gets him tossed from the board again and again and again....

It's actually scary how much of the Worlds ship traffic goes through just five choke points;

The Strait of Malacca

The Strait of Hormuz

The Strait of Dover

The Panama Canal

The Suez Canal

The navigable width of each of the first three is less than 20 miles.

Wouldn't take much for any of them to be effectively completely blocked by an attacker.

Ninetails,

You are wasting your time - Pboo is just another Adrian, but with better Syntax.

Adrian,

Sad to see that you are still running faster than the knowledge chasing you...

Pboo,

No, just proving that you are wrong in what you claimed.

You may call my posts rambling, but unfortunately we have to try to compromise in using small enough words that you can understand, while not using too many which exceed your short attention span.

Where am I repeating what you said?

Oh, that's right - I'm not.

You are regurgitating (mostly wrongly - no surprises there) what I posted.

To summarise in short words and sentences that you (and Adrian) might be able to understand;

You claimed that ball bearings weren't used in perf guns.

They are, under some circumstances which I explained and even provided you with a link to read.

So you were wrong.

You postulated...sorry, that's too big a word for you...erm, you theorised that...nope, still too big a word for you...umm, let's see - oh yes - you thought that they used this type of perf gun on Brockam and Lidsey.

And you were wrong - because you don't know anything about Geology or Completions.

You tried - and failed - to put words into my mouth about the types of charge used on HH &BB as well - you were wrong - again.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about it being old technology, even though I posted examples of old technology still widely in use.

Oh, shaped charges were invented over 200 years ago.....

BTW, I respond once and you feel the need to respond twice, trying to deflect - again, while avoiding admitting the fact that you were wrong - again.

Actually, looking at the number of times you have posted on this board in the last few days, it's clear which of us has a bee in his bonnet and needs to calm down - and it's not me...

Pboo hasn't answered, because he doesn't work in the industry and so is clueless about how perforating actually works.

You are essentially correct, if a hole had been made in the casing then any oil in the formation would flow into the well.

When UKOG initially perforated, the gun (4 1/2") & explosive charge size they used were not optimised for the casing size (9 5/8") that they were in.

This was because they didn't expect to perforate the 9 5/8" casing (and didn't run E-logs over the 12 1/4" hole section) as it doesn't contain any of the Primary & Secondary geological targets.

When the Wells Primary & Secondary targets in the 8 1/2" hole section proved to be dry (i.e. nothing there), UKOG suddenly 'remembered' that a smell of oil that had been experienced during the drilling of the 12 1/4" hole section, and so decided to test it.

When they perforated, there was no flow into the wellbore.

This can be interpreted in two ways;

A) The perforations didn't actually penetrate the casing (due to the guns & charge sizes being sub-optimal), or;

B) Some of the perforations did penetrate the casing, but there is nothing in the formation to flow.

UKOG chose to presume option A and decided to obtain larger guns (7") & explosive charges to redo the test.

Having used 4 1/2" gun to perforate 9 5/8" casing before, (although for a different reason), my money is on option B.

No PBoo,

If you'd actually paid attention, you'll see Adrian always starts with the insults, accusations and threats, as he cannot stand being shown to be wrong in his claims (which he repeats with every new ID).

He tries to play the victim card, while still refusing to accept that the reason he is permanently banned from the LSE is precisely because of his abusive behaviour towards other posters.

Pboo,

Seriously?

You make a statement that I prove – by including a link – is incorrect.

Instead of earning some respect by admitting you were wrong, you do an Adrian and double down, by trying to distort what I said into something else.

Pathetic.

Actually, you aren’t even as good as Adrian at doubling down, as at least he doesn’t try and twist my words to say something which is the direct opposite of what I’d already said earlier in the thread.

So, just for clarity, I said earlier in this thread that this type of perforating charge was not used on Brockam and Lidsey.

Also for clarity - nor were they used on Horse Hill or Balcome.

Nor would they be, as none of those Wells are internally gravel packed – which is the circumstance they would most often be used.

Which also goes to show your complete lack of understanding of both Geology and Completion technology, as none of those fields have the unconsolidated sands that would need gravel packing in the first place.

As for being ‘old technology’, so what?

We still use the ICE, the basic technology of which is over 200 years old.

We still use Planes - over 120 years old.

We still use Wind Turbines – over 1,000 years old.

We still use the Wheel - over 5,000 years old…

PBoo,

Just to make it easy for you, copied from the link I posted:

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

Nowadays, companies are only using bullet perforators in specific cases, such as the perforation of certain soft formations, the placement of radio-active marker bullets for compaction monitoring, or where there is a requirement for circular and burr-free holes. Finally, remember the following:

Often, we use the bullet method to perforate the casing in unconsolidated formations.

Bullets lose velocity when perforation gun clearance >0.5 in.

Bullets plug the end of the flow channel.

It is cheaper to use

This perforator is rare today.

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

So read the first ten words and then the last five words of the above excerpt.....

Pboo,

Don't be like Adrian, and read further than just the first paragraph this time.

And no, they didn't use that type of perforating charge on Brockham or Lidsey - they were perforated with shaped charges.

Honestly, sometimes I feel it's a waste of time to try and educate some people, if they refuse to read anything even when it's spoon fed to them on a plate by those that actually know what they are doing.

Y'know - those that actually work in the oil industry for a living.....

Pboo,

You question BP's previous assertion that we use ball bearings to perforate casing.

Although comparatively rare these days, we still do - most often in gravel packed wells that need to be re-perforated.

https://www.drillingmanual.com/well-perforation-methods-techniques-in-oil-gas-completion/

(A bit out of date, but at least it explains the basics).

Have you not picked up from the RNS the the service provider has changed from W/Ford to PSI?

If you'd bothered to read what those of us who actually work in the oil industry have said on this board previously, we questioned whether or not that UKOG could get an internationally renowned service company (i.e. W/Ford) to use 7" guns at such a shallow depth on safety grounds.

You would also have read that we speculated that perhaps UKOG would have to switch to a local Service Company (with lower safety standards) to do the work.

It's now clear that that's exactly what they have had to do.

As for the timing of when the perforating will take place, it's not clear from the RNS whether or not by 'deployment' they mean actually use on the Well (which is what that terminology should do), or mean that they are referring to shipment of the explosive charges from the airport to the local service base.

If it really is "ready to be transported to site", they should have already established a work program (including equipment requirements) and schedule with AME, so what they mean by the last sentence in the first paragraph is not clear - as perforating should be imminent.

If it's to transport the explosives from the airport, then we are still several weeks away from doing the actual perforating.

That UKOG feel the need to issue and RNS now, means I'm leaning towards the latter.

Oh, if it looks like a P&D, walks like a P&D and talks like a P&D, then......

The Guardian showing their complete lack of understanding of Geothermal - not surprising really as they don't understand the oil industry either - even though they continue to print numerous lies and/or distortions about us...

The diagram has nothing to do with the KM 8 Well and what CeraPhi did - which is low energy Geothermal and closed loop (all contained within the casing of a single well). Good for district heating or heating greenhouses and not much else.

The diagram is of the proposed system for deep Geothermal in Cornwall - which hasn't actually started producing yet. The Wells took ages to drill and went hideously over budget - because they decided they could do it themselves and didn't need advice from us nasty, smelly oil field types....

It relies on fracing to connect the two Wellbores and they have no idea how long it will take for the water to go from one Well to the other - or even if it will go from one well to the other and not get lost into the formation.

In the meantime, Geothermal work in Cornwall has produced over 50 Earthquakes (nearly all of which exceed the limit allowed for fracing operations) but that's "O.K." as it's for renewable energy.

The reality is that the UK is resource poor (as the BGS report shows) when it comes to high grade Geothermal for power production. Even the highest temperature gradients (in Cornwall and around the Newcastle area) require drilling to 4km and it's simply not economic to go that deep for Geothermal power (as several projects in Europe have also found out).

Low grade Geothermal for district heating and greenhouses is widely available and could be made to work in the UK - especially since there are some 4,500 Onshore Wells, many of which could be converted at the end of their useful production life to produce Geothermal.

Although not HH, where the temperature isn't even high enough for district heating - which is probably why we haven't heard anything more about their deal with CeraPhi to produce Geothermal energy at HH....

"And what if their farminee, PennPetro Energy, announce increased flow rates from current and proposed new drills that drives the share price up so they can raise more cash ? Sounds good to many investors."

What PPP does in Texas has zero effect on the structure of the farm-in agreement with UKOG, or the cost of the 3D Seismic and HH-3.

"Here's why farminee can be successful

Pennpetro Energy's Texas Well Had Strong First Production Month"

A completely nonsensical statement, which again has nothing to do with the structure of the farm-in agreement with UKOG, or the cost of the 3D Seismic and HH-3.

The market is very concerned that Oxy have paid too much (shares are down 2%), particularly since they took on c. $10 Billion in debt to finance it, rather than an equity swap.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-11/occidental-s-10-8-billion-merger-is-a-high-stakes-debt-wager

This is also in light of an effective reduction in spending in the Shale areas next year, as the forecast 2% increase in spending is much less than current oil industry inflation levels.

https://worldoil.com/news/2023/12/8/u-s-oil-producers-to-slow-capital-spending-in-2024-analysts-say/?oly_enc_id=5801J6403578F0Z

In any case, it all has zero effect on PPP or UKOG.

I doubt any of the ramptastic crew actually understand what we mean by flush production, so let's give them an analogy;

Imagine you run a garden hose from your roof down to the ground.

You add fluid in at one drop a second and that's what flows out of the bottom.

You block off the bottom, while in the top, you continue to add fluid in at one drop a second.

A month later, the hose is now full, so you open up the bottom and - Hey Presto! - a rush of fluid (i.e. flush production - which is what is reported - a.k.a. "The Wall Street test") as the hose empties, before it resumes flowing at one drop a second.

So in this analogy, the hose is the fracture(s) and the one drop per second is the recharging of the fracture from the formation matrix.

I've asked about PPP in some of the meetings I've had here (I'm still in Houston) and the response has always been "Who?".

But, to be fair, I doubted I'd get any other reaction as there are hundreds of 'Mom and Pop' operations in Texas.

BTW Nom, I think you have underestimated SS's per bbl rate - at 50 BOPD and a salary of £312k pa, his rate is closer to £17/bbl.

At that rate, I'll bet he wishes HH really did flow at North Sea rates!

My guess is Alba don't want DL anywhere near this, irrespective of whether or not they think the farm-in agreement is a good deal.

Ocelot,

The farm-in cost is capped at £4.6 Million, which isn't enough to cover the cost of acquiring, processing & interpreting the 3D Seismic, integrating the results into their Geological model and also the drilling of HH-3 (if it ever gets drilled).

UKOG will have to shell out some cash, so it won't be at "zero capital cost".

Also, at least in the oil industry, 'capital expenditure' normally refers to just materials & consumables, not the operating cost of - for example - the seismic or Rig crews & equipment rental. So UKOG may be being very careful with their wording.

PPP have indicated a cost of £350k for the seismic. I don't know if that's also capped (the farm-in agreement implies it is), but that's not going to be enough to also include the processing, interpretation and integration into the HH Geological model - that'll probably be another £200k in itself - although that's more Penguins bailiwick than mine.

I see he's gone - for the moment at least.

Tossed by Admin or self-terminating to try an erase the evidence?

Of course, he'll deny having made that prediction - or ignore those whom have the temerity to point it out to him.

Penguins,

Typo in your post - you meant £3.761 Million, not £3,761 Million.

Although I've no doubt that at least one of the ramptastic crew will use this as 'evidence' that the real value of HH is being hidden.....

Oh, I'm not a big fan of BP posting like that.

However, at least he can use his experience and knowledge of the oil industry to - for example - explain why the original perforation guns used on Pin-1 were likely too small.

But personal insults are ALL that the ramptastic crew has.

Don't you realise how FOOLish it makes you look when you accuse people who actually work in the Oil Industry of being 'greenies' or members of XR / JSO?

Lets face it, the reason why you don't like us being on here is that we can point out the giant holes in your ramptastic posts, so you can't easily manufacture a P&D to suck in unwary PI's.