Member Info for ZYX098

Apologies, just to clarify, the £7 Billion is a combined figure.

We paid about £1.2 Billion last year to wind farms to not produce during 'times of plenty' and about £6 Billion for gas fired power stations to be on Standby for low wind periods.

BTW, the whole European system has become so unbalanced that the wholesale price of power now regularly becomes negative (especially at night on a weekend) and can be subject to wild swings of over £100/MWh in the space of 30 mins- like this morning:

https://grid.iamkate.com/

IBug,

I think the IEA Study was more along the lines of what will be needed, rather than actual predictions of what will happen.

But I just don't see it being realistic.

The Worlds energy requirement is predicted to double by 2050, as 2+ Billion people in SE Asia and Africa reach 'middle class'.

The UK is still in the top ten of major economies expected to meet their Net Zero targets by 2050, and our demand and usage forecasts are still way above what the IEA is predicting.

The UK's oil consumption will drop by less than 15% by 2040 and UK home produce supply will drop to just 20% of demand - and this study was done before the ruinous EPL devastated the UKCS.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/749076/projected-uk-oil-production-demand/

By 2050, we'll still need fossil fuel for around 25% of our electrical power.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/modelling-2050-electricity-system-analysis

The true cost of transitioning to renewables is just beginning to become apparent to the Public (even though it's been clear for several years to those of us who read the background data), which is why Govts across Africa and SEA are busy developing their gas reserves for G2P projects to meet their burgeoning energy demands - not renewables.

It's simply absurd for the eco-warriors to claim that approval of Rosebank will destroy the UK'S climate credibility.

How many know (or care) that Norway approved 50 O&G projects last year and so far another 20 this year - despite their production greatly exceeding their needs?

How many know that Denmark has rescinded it's stated policy of ending Offshore O&G production by 2035 and in fact opened up a new licencing round earlier this year?

How many know that Germany still has around 65 Coal fired power plants and has recently approved the expansion of a surface Lignite mine (the worst fossil fuel of all), which ironically needed the removal of a wind farm?

How many know that China is building 2 new coal fired power plants every month, or India building 1 a month?

In the meantime, the renewable driven requirements for Copper, Graphite, Nickel, Cobalt, Lithium and the Rare Earths are astronomical, such that demand for each is forecast to increase at least six-fold by around 2040 - simply not going to happen.

Which is why CC(U)S will be such an important part of the energy equation going forward - it has to be as the Maths just doesn't allow otherwise, despite the Hopium pedalled by the Eco-warriors.

Building more renewables in the UK is great, but what we (and Europe) really need more of in the immediate future is substantially increased capability of storage of excess electrical power - otherwise the c. £ 7 Billion we paid for windfarms not to produce in excess periods, while paying Gas Power stations to be on Standby for when the wind isn't blowing will only get larger.

Ocelot,

Of more relevance is the Ineos decision to repurpose Grangemouth.

Even though energy security is not devolved to Holyrood, it shows what happens when the local Govt (SNP, propped up by the Greens) makes it clear that they want to shut down all UKCS hydrocarbon production.

Take it down a level and you get the same effect with the likes of SCC and incompetent Local Councillors.

Ocelot,

Yes, AME are the Operator (hence my earlier comment about the wording of an RNS), but we know that UKOG are carrying the cost from the AME Chairmans statement.

In that situation, AME would be quite happy for UKOG to carry on as they'd be paying AME's Overheads.

BP,

Ordinarily I'd agree and do (have done!) just that.

But they didn't have a BOP Stack on during drilling the 12 1/4" hole section (!), so I'm not sure the wellhead configuration after they'd set the 9 5/8" would have allowed them to do even a modest pressure test with the shooting nipple.

If they were at all competent, they'd have isolated the 8 1/2" hole section (which they already knew was dry - even if they haven't admitted it) and may well have taken the BOP Stack off when they got the Rig out of the way, so the W/Line

Company could rig up a shooting nipple directly onto the wellhead.

But I'm not even sure they used a shooting nipple!

I would hope so, given that W'Ford were the E-Logging Company, but that's not to say they actually used them - not uncommon to bring in a local outfit for that sort of work who may not adhere to 'good oilfield practice'.....

Some FOOL's 50p short on RR must have really, really hurt...

Ocelot,

WRT to UKOG's original RNS on testing Pin-1, all the downhole pressure gauge data would have shown is that there was no fluid flow into the wellbore from the formation.

There are two possible explanations for this;

A) The perforating charges didn't actually perforate the casing, hence no flow.

Or;

B) Some perforations did get through the casing and expose the formation to the wellbore, but the formation failed to flow.

UKOG have chosen to go with Option A.

Although (as BP and myself have both pointed out), using the 4 1/2" guns was far from optimal, I am of the opinion that at least some of the shots actually did get through the casing (I've used the same gun size in 9 5/8" casing successfully, but for a different purpose), but there is nothing there to flow.

Of course, if UKOG were of the opinion that the guns didn't perforate the casing, they could have run any of several readily available image logs across the perforated interval to check - which would have been a cheap way of confirming their assertion prior to going to the huge cost of sourcing & using the 7" perf guns.

So why didn't they run an image log and prove that their conclusion was correct?

Far easier to raise DSF with a potential carrot of Pin-1 still hanging there, than proving it's a dud first...

I said it at the time they announced going into Turkey, said it since (several times) and I'll say it again;

Turkey is a giant waste of time and resources - both of which would have been better spent in progressing work at HH and Loxley.

The original money raised for Turkey would have been better spent on doing a small 3D Seismic program on HH to establish if it's worth drilling an additional production Well, with the remainder used on trying to progress Loxley.

The cost of doing it all 2 - 3 years ago would have resulted in a huge cost saving over doing the work now, as the oilfield has seen very substantial increases (typically 40+ %) in the cost of materials, equipment and manpower in the last couple of years.

The cost of obtaining and mobilising the 7" guns to do another test on Pin-1 would have been better spent on doing the HH-2z conversion to a water injector.

Despite what one FOOLish poster keeps claiming, there is nothing stopping UKOG doing this work - as their own RNS's of the 15th August 2022 and 23rd Feb 2023 show.

UKOG figures show a £250k pa cost saving in doing the conversion.

Not much in the big scheme of SS's pay packet, but it's pretty much guaranteed to effectively generate more income for UKOG, which Pin-1 most assuredly is not.

There is also a potential (albeit small) upside for increasing HH oil production, as they would have the capability to produce it for longer as the increased water production can be re-injected.

If they have any sense, UKOG would have approached other Weald Operators who currently have to tanker away produced water with a view to getting them to send it to HH for re-injection (and charging them for the privilege), which should help at least stabilise the reservoir pressure.

In the meantime, a guaranteed downside of NOT doing the conversion is that every week they are spending cash on water tankers to dispose of the produced water and - by not re-injecting the produced water - reservoir pressure continues to fall to the detriment of management of the field.

I see the FOTH has been busy again.

Or, to be more accurate, I don't, as his posts have already disappeared...

As has already been explained elsewhere on this board, any immediate testing will be by swabbing the well in - which will not give any indication of flow rates, whether it's water, oil or a mixture.

All it will tell them is if there is any oil at all there - which we already know from the 'smell' and the photo of the emulsion produced when running the 9 5/8" casing. And the Keyser-1 water Well has already told us what majority fluid can be expected to be produced (the clue is "water" in the Wells name...).

If they do manage to get oil back to surface, what effect will it have on the share price?

Well, the ramptastic crew will try and manufacture a P&D, but in reality, it will have little effect.

Note that the wording of any RNS will have to be approved by AME, because as the license Operator they will have to report the results to the Turkish Govt. So no doubt the RNS will be very carefully worded, but it can't be overly ramptastic.

There is no structure map that we know of, so they can't calculate the Gross Rock Volume in the closure area (if there is any closure). They don't know the formation properties - in particular the porosity - as they didn't run any E-Logs in this hole section, so they can't work out the potential pore volume which might contain fluid.

Similarly, they won't know if any fluid production during swabbing is from the matrix or from fractures or what the formation fluids that are in any pore spaces actually are, so no chance of claiming the size of any potential oil column.

All of which means that they won't be able to assign any reserves to the Well, and it's bookable reserves that they need to shift the share price.

What if they do manage to get some oil swabbed to surface?

Cue photo and a smiling SS...

But they'll have to do a proper DST on it - which means running a Completion with an ESP (more expense), installing surface test equipment (more expense) and installing a power source for the test equipment, crew cabins/offices & ESP (more expense).

We already know that any oil production is likely to be emulsified (from Keyser-1 and running the 9 5/8" casing) which will drastically increase the cost of any test, as they will need extra tankage, lines, chemical injection pumps & transfer pumps so they can separate the oil & water with a demulsifier (also expensive).

But even if they do that and it's successful, they still can't assign reserves to the Well, as explained already.

To get that information needs more seismic and another Well (more expense)...

So what's the point?

None, really - except to allow SS to continue trousering his £1k pd.

BTW gw71, the last buy that Adrian FOOLishly admitted to was for 0.0327p.

That's in addition to his previous buys (that we know of - because he posted them on here) of 0.18p, 0.06p, 0.05p and 0.0329p.

Penguins,

Never been on Twatter / X, so have no idea what the 'Weekend Warrior' is claiming and, quite frankly, don't care.

His claims about people being 'worried' are as (in)credible as his claims that we are scared of him...

Hmmm, newbie suddenly appears just prior to testing, with a local sounding name and praising AME.

Where have we seen that before?

Oh, wait.....

Didn't at least one of them claim to live close to the Basur-3 location and claim it was 'the talk of the bars all the way to Istanbul'??

"Will be"?

Why?

Penguins,

Also, UKOG never mentioned the results of the 'specialist' E-Log interpretation that they had commissioned of the 8 1/2" hole Logs.

Of course, E-Logs over the 12 1/4" hole would have provided valuable information, but the smell of oil obviously wasn't important enough to trigger running of the Logs after drilling that section...

The results of Keyser-1, which is actually on the crest of the Pin-1 structure, seem to have been forgotten (or being ignored) by the ramptastic crew as well as UKOG.

Similarly, they are ignoring the fact that drilling on a structure that has an active oil seep on it is bad news, as the seep means that the trap has been breached.

As BP and myself have mentioned before, there are very serious safety issues with using large guns at that depth. I just don't see them being allowed to perforate the entire interval in one go.

Maybe 10m at a time - which means that the subsequent runs after the first will all be in a hydrostatically overbalanced condition, therefore allowing wellbore fluids to enter the formation during perforating.

Of course, since they didn't run any logs during drilling, where they will perforate first is purely guesswork.

In cased hole DST's, you test from the bottom up, but I imagine in this case they will be tempted to perforate the top of the interval where the smell happened, as at least they know that's where it came from - the smell from deeper could just be residual.

They could do the first perforation run underbalanced and then run a (time consuming) swabbing program (including a clean up run to remove any perforation debris that could damage the swab cups) to try and recover formation fluids.

Hopefully they have a tracer in the fluid in the wellbore that will allow them to differentiate between water lost into the formation during perforating (I'm willing to bet they didn't have any tracer in the mud system during drilling....), and any formation water produced.

If they see "encouraging signs" from the first swabbing programme, they could carry on with the program, which at 10m a time could be a long, drawn out process if they run a swab test each time they perforate...

Adrian,

Why do you keep claiming that people are scared of you?

Nobody is.

You know I run Drilling Rigs for a living - you have even complemented me on using my knowledge to try and work out what Pboo's observations meant with respect to Operations at HH.

Of course, being a fire extinguisher salesman yourself, it does mean that most of the time you have no clue what I'm talking about as your own oil field expertise is limited to Google searches and what SS whispered in your ear...

Are you making up what DL allegedly tweeted now?

I highly doubt that he would refer to a "Supreme Court tilling"....

We don't want you banned "to silence the truth".

Mainly because you wouldn't know what the truth is, even if it was put in front of you on paper in bold, underlined, block capital, size 24 letters in Times New Roman font.

Besides, you are already have a lifetime ban from LSE for abusing other posters - which is why you have to use a VPN to make up yet another fake ID for your rants and fantasies.

Adrian,

Perhaps you can point out exactly where in DL's tweet it says that progress on HH is being held up by the SC Case?

Clue: It doesn't.

Despite your claims, UKOG themselves have never claimed that the SC Case is holding up progress.

In fact, UKOGs own RNSs state just the opposite of your claim;

RNS of 23rd Feb 2023

UK Oil & Gas PLC (London AIM: UKOG) is pleased to announce that, as a necessary precursor to its planned Horse Hill-2z ("HH-2z") Portland formation water reinjection project, the Company has now installed three, shallow, groundwater monitoring boreholes at its 85.635% owned producing oil field.

RNS of 15th August 2022

Preparatory work towards converting HH-2z into a produced saline water reinjector continues.

In the meantime, I'll just leave this snippet from DL's Wiki entry;

Corporate Governance Related Criticisms

He has been accused of frequently "promoting a company, pushing up the (price of its) shares, then raising cash by placing new shares — and (thus) diluting the holdings of the early investors",[15] described as "a familiar tale with most companies he promotes".[16] His defence has been that "You can’t build a business on bottle tops.".[17] Furthermore, he has argued that it's not accurate to claim that "all his ventures have turned sour".[18] Although finance commentators have noted that most of the "hundreds" of companies he has been involved in, and "stock promoted" for, have failed to generate any successful shareholder returns.[19]

In 2009 he was one of a group of claimants, claiming that he had been libelled when an investment publication in South Africa had described the group of executives of one of Lenigas' ventures as "cynically and greedily indulged in self-enrichment at the expense of, and contrary to the interests of, shareholders."[20] The High Court of Justice of the United Kingdom rejected Lenigas', and the other claimants' libel claim, and found in favour of the publisher.[21]

"Ill tell you who I am. Im the one you swampies are scared of lololol."

Really?

Nobody is scared of you Adrian.

And since you appear to have forgotten who you are, I'll remind you:-

You are the poster who has a lifetime ban from LSE for abusing other posters;

who has to use a VPN to come back on under a fake ID;

who uses the fake ID to post fantasy claims about UKOG & other posters;

who abuses other posters when they point out how wrong your fake claims are by using facts, knowledge & experience (all of which you lack, being a serial liar and fire extinguisher salesman);

who tries to play the pity card by claiming to have a disorder that you don't actually have;

who tries to play the victim card by complaining of being the subject of bullying;

who gets thrown off the board by Admin;

who repeats the above behaviour on a bi-weekly basis;

who wonders why you have no credibility.

Adrian,

Well since neither of them make up fantasies about who other posters are, what they do, what their share holding is, ignoring UKOG's own RNS's and worshiping DL, they are not as amusing as you who does all those things.

Adrian,

During October, November and December last year, you were on here repeatedly claiming (with Twitter links to supposed pictures of the tankers) that the increased numbers of tankers leaving HH had meant that production had magically doubled to over 100 BOPD.

It was repeatedly pointed out to you that UKOG had done no work, so production would be in the mid- 50's BOPD - the 'realistic' posters of which you heaped abuse upon - even when some of us pointed out the correlation between more tankers and rainfall at HH..

When the official NTSA figures were published, they showed you were completed wrong and that production was exactly what the realistic posters had been saying it would be.

And you wonder why you have no credibility whatsoever?

Nom,

Read it over a coffee - the report is into the effects of what would happen IF H2 was widely adopted and there was some fugitive emissions.

But it doesn't back up any of your claims about who is pushing for adoption of H2, the practicalities of widespread adoption of ASHP's or that using H2 in the gas distribution network would result in increased pipeline leakage.

Nom,

In reality, H2 will normally be stored in it's native state - there is no need to waste energy convert it into Ammonia unless you wish to transport it long distances to an end user where there isn't any infrastructure in place.

For that reason, storage in salt caverns is indeed a viable option - as long as the salt caverns are within a reasonable distance of where the H2 will be generated - which isn't Portland.

The fossil fuel industry has not been pushing H2 for the reason you claim (actually it's the wind farm Operators who have been pushing it more) - instead we have been pointing out the very real issues with trying to switch over to ASHP's in the time frame proposed, plus the undoubted fact that much of the UK housing stock is not as suitable as others (e.g. Scandinavian) for the installation.

There are experiments ongoing with respect to mixing H2 in the gas grid, but as far as I am aware they have yet to show that excessive H2 escape would be an issue.

If you have a link to the research that shows that to be the case, I'd be interested in reading it.

The main concern is H2 embrittlement of the steel used and that is what much of the focus of the experiments.

I thought you meant Adrian turning up with another fake ID, trying desperately to ramp the share, complaining of being bullied, accusing the realists of being greenies / shorters, abusing other posters and finally getting tossed of the board.

Again.