Official criticism of Angus Energy’s drilling and management at Brockham oil site

Brockham night working Brockham Protection Camp

Brockham oil site. Photo: Brockham Protection Camp

The regulator of the oil and gas industry has criticised Angus Energy over its operation at Brockham near Dorking.

Angus has been involved in a planning dispute with Surrey County Council over a sidetrack well drilled at the site in January 2017. The company has also admitted mixing up wellheads at Brockham.

The Oil and Gas Authority said in an email to Angus Energy’s chair, Jonathan Tidswell Pretorius:

“I think it is fair to say that the drilling operations suffered from a lack of clarity in their execution”.

The email, dated 2 August 2017 and released today in response to a freedom of information request, raises concerns about Angus Energy’s procedures at Brockham.

It reveals that Angus mistakenly thought the wellhead of the X3 well was the wellhead for the X4 well because a 7” casing hanger was missing.

The author of the email, the OGA’s director of regulation, Tom Wheeler, said:

“The error over the identity of the wellhead could have been avoided had Angus undertaken more analysis.”

He said the mistake would have been spotted if Angus had reviewed final well reports of the X3 and X4 wells or looked at well data on the OGA website and traced the evolution of the well site using Google Earth.

“Relied on recollection”

The email also revealed concerns about Angus’s management procedures.

The OGA and Angus met three times between March and July 2017 to discuss operations at Brockham. Mr Wheeler said:

“Our discussions relied on your recollections rather than a formal (documented) management of change”.

Mr Wheeler also raised concerns about Angus Energy’s access to useful documents:

“There is technical material, both in the public domain and probably held privately, that Angus does not have or in some cases were not aware of, but which would aid the efficient operation of Brockham were it held.”

Mr Wheeler also said that Angus had been “slow” in reporting progress on the sidetrack well, though he acknowledged this was partly because a member of staff had been seriously ill.

Review required

The correspondence revealed that the OGA has required Angus Energy to:

  • Undertake a structured search for information held privately and publically relating to its licences and, where practical, secure this material;
  • Review all the information available on the three Brockham wells and those on its licences and provide to the OGA for each a report detailing their history and status;
  • For all Angus licences, review management of change and general decision-making processes to ensure best practice.

According to the correspondence, Angus agreed to complete this work by the beginning of November.

Funding and insurance

In a separate letter, sent on 28 June, also released today, the OGA required Angus to confirm it had funding in place to produce oil from the Brockham sidetrack BR-X4Z.

The OGA also asked for a statement from the company that it had insurance cover and funding to cover unexpected events.

Angus Energy replied on 17 July that the funds and insurance was in place.

Planning dispute

Another letter from Angus Energy to the OGA, also sent on 17 July, repeats the company’s frequently-stated view that it had planning permission to drill and produce oil from the BR-X4Z sidetrack. Surrey County Council has consistently disagreed.

Angus said in the letter it had received no detailed response from the county council dispute the company’s position. This must, it said:

“indicate that the County Council now accepts our analysis of the legal position.”

Since then, Angus Energy has made a statement to investors that the council has asked it to submit a planning application for operations at Brockham associated with the BR-X4Z side track. The company said it would submit a “normalisation application”.

DrillOrDrop has asked Angus Energy to comment on the correspondence. This post will be updated with any response.

Link to released correspondence

7 replies »

  1. Angus has at least been economical with the truth and have misled investors since they denied after hour working at Brockham. I notice no mention of the ” Hydrocarbon leak ” that needed 24/7 emergency planning permission while they drilled this side-track . Then the breaches at Lidsey even after warnings from WSCC , what a bunch of cowboys , where are the gold standards?

  2. Why am I not surprised to read this? The litany of Angus mis-doings increases as the months progress. Can we trust anything they say? The matter of the hydrocarbons release at Brockham, serious enough for them to require out-of-hours working through the night and t weekends has never been clarified: who did Angus inform when it happened, and where is their documentation of the event? Gold standard regulation has to be based on trust.

  3. Some of us received a criminal record and hefty fine for trying to bring the unlawful activities ofAngus to Surrey County Council, the police and the public. Where is the morality or justice in that ? One rule for the oil drillers and another for protestors 😦

  4. No Chris. You achieved a criminal record through breaking the law, and being caught at it. You chose to do it. Blaming someone else for it just indicates you don’t have the courage of your own convictions (no pun intended.) Hardly the attitude expected within those campaigning against “injustice.” Even if it was true, “he got away with it and I didn’t” doesn’t really have much going for it.

    • Hey MARTIN , talking about breaking the law .

      I take note that you were VERY QUIET on the other page regarding the article about several security guards assaulting and ” touching ” a woman OUTSIDE the gates of Third Energy.

      FIRST OF ALL LET’S GET THIS CLEAR, a security guard is employed to protect a companies assets within the perimeter fencing of the company grounds. AGREED ???

      A security guard is NOT the law and has NO authority or powers whatsoever, especially outside the perimeter fencing on the Queens Highway . AGREED ???

      To put it bluntly my local Paper Boy has as much enforcement powers as a security guard . AGREED ???

      There is no disputing the video evidence , therefore should these men be charged with assault / sexual assault of this woman, or is it okay for any man to put on a fluorescent jacket, go out and assault and put his hands all over a female stranger ????

      There are a LOT of WOMAN on this website that I’m sure would like to hear YOUR opinion on the matter and also the opinions of (( GBK, Hballpeeny, Refricktion which I group together as one, GHR ))

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s