Member Info for ZYX098

Shows what those who actually pay attention to what is going on have known all along; most of the environmentalists make the mistake of looking at everything from a "developed world, Urban" perspective.

However, there are around 3 Billion people in the developing world who desire (and are entitled to) our standard of living and the energy consumption that that implies.

Any Govt's No.1 priority is to supply that energy and ensure security of supply.

The most economical way to do that is not renewables, it's building either coal or gas fired power stations.

There is a direct correlation between rising energy prices and the % of energy generated by renewables.

The current price hike is just the start - it's going to get much worse, especially as eye-wateringly expensive power from floating wind starts to come online.

Even the offshore wind industry admit the LCOE for floating wind is going to be c. £250/MWhr.

They claim that Opex and Capex costs will come down - but current experience of static offshore wind shows the opposite is true. (Data available at:- https://ref.org.uk/ )

In fact, there is nowhere near enough Nickel, Cobalt, Lithium or rare earth minerals production to meet current demand for EV's and wind turbines in any case.

Currently, the likes of the FoE and Greenpeace are putting pressure (or trying to use the Courts) on Western Govts and Banks to stop lending money for O&G developments.

This is short-sighted, as all that will do is force Operators to go to the Chinese and Russians for the money - which will not come with the same HSE stipulations put on such loans by the West.

There is a huge backlog of deferred expenditure on O&G built up from the price crash of 2015.

Activity was just beginning to pick back up again when Covid hit and brought many operations to a standstill, while annual maintenance cycles were delayed.

The result is that over $1 Trillion in O&G projects have been deferred and the supply / demand chain is precariously balanced because the natural cycle of replacing depleting production has been interrupted over the last few years.

In the meantime, we'd all better hope that this coming Winter in Europe, North America and Asia is a mild one, or things will get really ugly...

It's clear it's going to be rejected by the Council, but on grounds that should be easily overturned on appeal.

Pretty much as expected.

Did that Councillor really just say it would be economic to produce offshore but not from onshore?

Wow.....

Gents,

FWIW, HM Govts own estimate of UK Gas consumption shows it remaining flat out to at least 2035.

Similarly, in the same time frame it shows UK Oil consumption falling by less than 10%.

In the meantime, World coal prices have reached a record high, Germany produced more power from Coal (mainly Lignite) than wind in H1 2021 and any reduction in CO2 emissions by the UK will amount to little more than a rounding error when the emissions of the likes of China, India and the USA are taken into account.

Can't imagine the wedding venue owner or his shill on the Council will be too happy about that.

Qwerty,

Some have tried, but either e-mails and calls don't get answered, or "we are only going to address questions that are directly to do with the business of the AGM".

Until he holds an investor call or does an AGM in person, it's near impossible to hold his feet to the fire.

The recent attempt to gain enough shareholders to call an EGM appears to have frightened them into making share purchase commitments - but the BoD promptly reneged on those commitments as soon as the EGM effort finished.

LittleSam,
In response to my statement;
"squeese off with cement for at least 60m either side of the injection zone, (and cementing in a horizontal wellbore to isolate is not the easiest thing in the world to do...) drill it out, reperforate and run a dual packer completion. "

you replied;
"Most of the above had to be done while completing the HH2z production well."

No, none of that was done while completing HH-2z.
What they tried to do later was to seal off the water producing fractures at the toe with a Thermatek plug and they failed.

There's an old saying "keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool(OTH), rather than open it and put it beyond all doubt".

You crossed that particular line a long time ago...

Here you go LittleSam, since you can't be bothered to do any basic research before posting nonsense.

https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/

Now make sure you get a dictionary first, as it's got lots of big words in it.

If you knew anything at all, you'd know what voidage means in an reservoir context - which you clearly don't.

But to keep it really simple for you, if you imagine the reservoir is a very large tank and take 150,000 bbls out of it, replacing the voidage means you have to put 150,000 bbls back in.

If you don't replace the voidage, the reservoir pressure continues to drop and gas comes out of solution, ultimately reducing the amount of oil recovered - which is not what the OGA want to see.

I'd try and educate you further, but you will be gone (again) by Monday anyway.

Sam,

Again, showing how little you know...

The remit of the OGA is to ensure that the UK's oil and gas reserves are produced as efficiently as possible.

That essentially means maximising oil recovery, not necessarily reducing an Operators costs.

If they cannot be convinced by UKOG that turning HH-2z into a water injector will improve oil recovery and not potentially damage the reservoir by injecting water into the wrong place, they won't approve it - it's as simple as that.

Oh, and UKOG will also have to show where they are going to get the water from to replace the voidage already created by past oil & water production.

Careful Sam, you don't know that much more than Blondee...

Oopsie, forgot about HH.

Well, I think that getting EA permission is a given.

However, not so for the OGA, as UKOG will have to convince the OGA that they won't just be using HH-2z as a water disposal well.

Not going to be easy to do since HH-2z was originally drilled as a producer, it showed their prospect map was considerably in error and that the water production is coming from natural fractures which may or may not be being fed from the Kimm.

They haven't done any new seismic to refine the prospect map and they (and the OGA) will know that injecting into a fractured reservoir which you don't understand is going to be fraught with difficulties - i.e. justifying where you think the injected water is going to go and how that will help either sweep new oil towards the existing producer or maintain reservoir pressure or both.

So let's make the assumption that they can persuade the OGA and get permission.

UKOG then have to get all the surface kit and install it, plus do a W/O of the Well too - none of which they have any money for - so more confetti needed.

So if UKOG issue an RNS with news that they have OGA approval, I expect a 30% - 50% spike, followed by a quick drop back to where it was as people realise they need to issue more confetti, that the W/O & surface facilities will not be ready until Q3 next year and that water injection will not bring the step change in production that some appear to think it will.

Continued (fell foul of the character limit..)

If AME lead UKOG up the garden path about either the validity of the prospect (remember UKOG never issued any prospect maps, CoS, potential reserves or even a planned TD of the Well) or the licence conditions in terms of spud date, then UKOG could take them to arbitration / Court - depending upon what the Contract says. But that would take years to sort out.
If, as I personally feel is more likely, UKOG were complicit, then they are going to have to issue yet more confetti to fund the new Well, which I doubt would be ready to spud much before July / August next year.
Whichever, I only see any RNS on Turkey as being bad news and the share price dropping by around 50%.

My thought is that the only news that would cause the share price to spike and maintain the new level is if the BoD finally abided by their RNS statement and bought some shares themselves.

If they ever did that, I think the share would double in price.

All IMHO, of course!

TWB,
I'm thinking along the same lines as Skwizz;
Loxley - fully expect Surrey to lose, but I suspect that that has already been factored into the current stock price. If for some bizarre reason they win, the share price will take a kicking and probably close below 0.1p.

Arreton - fully expect to lose the first time around, as Councillors will want to wash their 'green credentials' in public. I think the share price may take a small drop if that's the case, as I suspect some new people have bought in over the last few days under the impression that the Council will rubber stamp the PI's report.
If UKOG do lose, I think there is a 50:50 chance UKOG could win on the second round, as by then the reality and magnitude of the energy crisis will have really hit home.
Otherwise it will go the same route as Loxley and I think Swizz's timeline is correct.
If by some miracle Arreton does pass muster at the first go, I expect the share price to spike up to perhaps .25 - 0.3p, before slowly dropping back to around 0.17p - 0.2p as people realise that the success case means more confetti shares will have to be issued.

Judging by past performance, I don't expect to hear anything on Turkey for several months, as they've already passed up the opportunity to officially notify the market that AME/ UKOG didn't get the additional licences applied for and I don't think the start and / or completion of the additional Seismic warrants an RNS by itself, unless they wrap it up with other information in a combination RNS.

As for Turkey itself, I expect that the news from the Seismic will be bad.
To get that deep before suspending means that they have very little latitude to go directionally off to a revised target.
Besides, in those types of formations, highly deviated wells are difficult / expensive to drill, and being just a few m out in the TVD prediction means it's very easy to go over or undershoot the formation you are aiming for.
So I expect the RNS on Turkey will be along the lines of "Sorry, can't reach the target from where we are, so have to build a new location and spud another well - which will also bring into play of how they left the original well, as they may need to bring in a Rig to P&A it properly (i.e. spend more cash).
In the scenario above, it them comes down to exactly what the agreement is between AME & UKOG as to whether more funds are needed.

Ibug,

Good point - I'd forgotten that.

In which case they will absolutely need to squeese off with cement for at least 60m either side of the injection zone, (and cementing in a horizontal wellbore to isolate is not the easiest thing in the world to do...) drill it out, reperforate and run a dual packer completion.

That presumes that the injection zone is close to the heel, otherwise they'll have an open annulus to surface which will need an additional packer to isolate, so that injected water can't channel along the outside of the slotted liner and up the production tubing / casing annulus.

Sam,
"much of the equipment on site needed for HH2z is already there and now owned".

No, it's not.

They need to recomplete HH-2Z, which as it's a water injector, means completely new downhole equipment (not already owned, although they might be able to reuse the Tubing), a new Xmas Tree configuration (not already owned) and likely a squeese and reperf work while they do the W/O in an attempt to make sure the injection water is at least going into the right area.

As for the surface equipment, they need to install pipe work and a transfer pump from the production separator to the water treatment tanks, water treatment facilities (including chemical dosing tanks, pumps and metering facilities), high pressure pump and pipework from the final treatment tank to the wellhead (again including metering and recording instrumentation), power for the pumps & dosing equipment and ESD monitoring & control systems.

None of which they already own.

Plus re-injection isn't a "free" process as you seem to think.

Ongoing chemical costs plus maintenance will likely cost $2 - $5/bbl, so yes, a lot cheaper than tankering away but still not free.

Penguins,

Yup - the original Wytch Farm well was only targeting the Bridport, which was then the dominant play in the area.

Gas Council and BP were 50/50 partners, with Gas Council being the Operator.

Gas Council decided it was worth going deeper to test the Sherwood, but BP declined. Gas Council decided to sole risk it below the Portland but at the last minute BP decided to join in, and the rest, as they say, is history..

It was Gulf who originally drilled the Morecambe Bay Field. They didn't find any oil and gave up the licence.

Later they realised what they had (after John Bains had asked them why they gave up the licence...), went to HM Govt and asked for the licence back.

The energy minister was one Anthony Wedgewood Benn, he refused and gave the licence to BG (who were still a nationalised industry at the time).

Also not widely known is that Gulf made the same mistake in the Southern North Sea. Drilled two wells on a structure, decided it wasn't worth it and then gave up the licence.

Amoco looked at the logs, picked up the licence in the next round and promptly put a production platform onto what is now known as the Rough Field.

Why should he jump completely?

Think about it - he is very well paid by UKOG, but how much work does he realistically do? A couple of hours a week?

KS;

By far the most likely outcome of the Turkey Seismic is "Oops, we are in the wrong place and need to move the well location to respud and hit the target."

Cynderlad,

Don't forget the $15/bbl overhead cost was prior to water breakthrough, so with water disposal costs to take into account, it will likely be in the $25 - $30/bbl range.

Interesting discussion Gents.

Certainly the lack of good seismic was always an issue from a drilling perspective, especially since the majority of wells had to be directional due to surface location limitations - easy to over/undershoot the target if the TVD's were out by a few 10's of feet.

Just wondering if any of the original seismic has been reprocessed in the last few years?

Can't see anyone shooting any new seismic in the South any time soon - just look at the hoo-hah up north where Vib trucks (working for Ineos?) were blamed for rupturing a water pipe about 5 miles away and the local MP (Dennis Skinner) said he had no interest in meeting them.