Angus Energy said this morning its Balcombe oil well in West Sussex had flowed at rates of 853 and 1,587 barrels of oil per day in tests. But the company said it had encountered unexpected water and ran out of time to do more than two tests because equipment had failed.
In a statement to investors, Angus said this morning it believed it could isolate the water-producing zone and establish commercial production at the Balcombe well under normal pumped conditions.
The company will need to apply for planning permission and environmental permit consents to go into production.
The tests were restricted to seven days and the statement said the duration of each test run was limited.
Angus said the water produced was “not expected”. It believed the horizontal section of the well had intersected a small high-pressure water zone. This would “require isolation in the future”, it said.
The company said it tried to identify the water zone but coiled tubing equipment failed after the second test.
The statement said the first flow of 853 barrels of oil per day (bopd) did not include the 22% produced water. The second flow, of 1,587 bopd, did not include 6.6% produced water.
During the initial flow period, the statement said, the well slugged at up to 3,000 bopd but this had to be reduced because it exceeded the separator operating capacity.
The statement added that the company had not observed or measured carbon dioxide or hydrogen sulphide. It said the oil was a light quality, around 34 API. It expected the quality would be similar to the levels recovered at Lidsey (38-40 API), also in West Sussex.
Paul Vonk, managing director of Angus Energy, said:
“We are obviously pleased with the results of the Balcombe-2z flow test and encouraged as we take our next steps towards producing from the Kimmeridge layers in the near future at the Brockham Field. This programme was successful because our team at Angus and our service providers maintained the highest standards, the most important of all being safe operations.”
Angus Energy’s partners in the Balcombe well, Cuadrilla, welcomed the completion of the flow test.
Francis Egan, Cuadrilla’s chief executive, said:
“We are encouraged by the results from two initial flow tests of the Balcombe horizontal exploration well. Further analysis of the data collected will be carried out, and potentially further testing may be required, to finally determine the commercial potential for the site.”
A second statement to investors confirmed that BNP Paribas Securities Services, acting for the New York fund management firm, Bergen Global Opportunity Fund, had reduced its shareholding from 11.35% of voting rights to 9.34%. Bergen Asset Management LLC is ultimately owned by Eugene Tablis.
- Angus Energy is at the High Court in London this morning for its injunction against protests at Balcombe and Brockham. DrillOrDrop will be reporting on the hearing.
Except it isn’t fracking!
If you can’t even get that little basic item correct, what chance with something slightly more complex? Like majorities and minorities?
No research, no knowledge, no credibility. Another uninformed. The anti truth in practice. Fake news followed by more fake news, surrounded by fog.
Clearly the ultimate aim is to frack, as Cuadrilla bleated to the DECC in 2011 during the earthquake-induced moratorium – Balcombe wouldn’t be viable unless they were allowed to frack.
They have drilled into narrow bands of limestone-rich clay. Clearly once they have played at acidising, they intend to get at the real stuff and frack the surrounding shale.
Wormholes for now, can of worms for later.
We are so happy to continue to call ourselves Frack Free Whatever.
Clearly the aim is not to frack. This has been made clear many times…….
Clearly that is economy with the truth, fake news, whatever.
Looks like they tested just two sections. Oh dear. The water issue will give them wet nightmares. I am delighted. Bearing in mind that production typically slows dramatically over the first year, they must also have been so disappointed by the flow. This is so encouraging for folk right across the Weald. We want them gone, never to return, from here and from everywhere.
Actually, they stated they were “pleased” and “encouraged” with the results, and rightly so. The fact the well flowed as high as 3,000 bopd is of significant commercial interest especially when considering the wider implications for the Weald basin. Long-term flows and depletion are the next phase of understanding…
I’m sure their shareholders are oh-so trusting.
Or two tests at different drawdowns / chokes on the same section. The water rate implies the same section tested twice – 113bwpd on each test hence the significant difference in water % at the two oil rates.
Angus get 25% of production, well that takes care of the water content then.
1,587 bopd was the oil net of any water. The water itself (6.6% of the higher flow rate) was equivalent to 112 bpd, so total production on the 2nd test was actually 1,700 barrels, of which 112 was water. Once the water problem is fixed, which sounds easily done, and the higher capacity kit is available above ground, then there’s no reasson why they won’t achieve a higher flow rate of dry oil.
We can sense your frustration at the facts, Jono, but it doesn’t change them.
You can call yourselves what you like Kathryn. The fact that you have to misrepresent facts, has not been missed by the majority. Your “we” doesn’t represent that majority. They actually bother to do some research, to inform their viewpoint. They actually expect such sites to be explored carefully and slowly, not to be rushed to provide ammunition for small cliques to utilise.
Good dialogue with the locals, control of antisocial activity in communities, careful examination of the best route forward, comparison across other sites. Gold standard.
You are wrong. Way larger majorities have voted against the presence of the oil and gas industry in this village than voted for Brexit…And we are extremely well researched and profoundly informed!
You claim to be well researched and informed but resort to misrepresenting facts. Why is that?
“Pleased” and “encouraged” is what the company stated.
Oh I do hope their shareholders are pleased and encouraged too!
I feel your sincerity. I believe they are, as the Weald is being proved up as a significant resource for all our benefits.
Facts; When a poll was taken in Balcombe 536 voted against drilling or just 35% of eligible voters . Hardly a huge majority. 309 supported drilling.
The good news, to the credit of all concerned, is that the recent flow test has caused no disruption, pollution, or any of the dire consequences threatened by objectors. A few protesters made their point peacefully while enjoying the sunshine outside their diesel powered bus.
There HAS been disruption caused by renewal of domestic gas pipes opposite the school. Totally unrelated to the oil well tests. I have heard of no objections doubtless because the residents of Balcombe accept that they will need gas for many years to come.
All the indications are that if successful the well may contribute to our economy safely, quietly & barely noticed by the people of our lovely village.
Pointless gestures butter no parsnips nor fund our social services.
1500bopd is a very good onshore well. £100000 per day income, I’d happily have that in my back garden!
Shout fake numbers to go with you fake news Daniel but it just won’t acid wash with the majority of well informed local residents who have done their research and want Angus out for good. But for now this is good news and hopefully Angus will abandon the well and realise it just not viable and go and bully some other community and fall to the same fate!
And then the flow will dwindle and dwindle and ………………………………………………………..
Perhaps demonstrating that [edited by moderator] might get you further then, as you indicate it is a choice rather than lack of knowledge.
Think you might find Brexit and oil and gas exploration is not a household, or village decision. Equally, there will be many like myself who used to deal with “we” and “everybody knows” in commercial life and had to train youngsters to recognise that it was invariably a smoke screen for a flimsy position being built to something it wasn’t.
Meanwhile, the site is being explored and may or may not be commercial. Wishing it will not be will not make any difference.
Also, meanwhile, I notice another drilling rig booked for the south. Perhaps the Fawley expansion plan is more integrated than some might suggest.
Angus just need to isolate the zone which communicates with water. An Upgrade of equipment and larger capacity separator and its going north of 3,000 bopd!
Lots of Wells round the world have water and its an easily repairable issue. This is great news for the uk, just think what this will be worth to Angus with further drilling from the same site multiples of that 3000
Onto brockham now to further prove up the Weald
On to Brockham now to succumb to the same fate and then those sorry punters will have lost their investments AGAIN! More fool them I say but one thing is for certain invest in these companies and you are on to a certainty to LOSE your money!
I am not sure your analysis of Angus investors is correct and that they have lost money.
If you had invested in Angus at float you would pay around 6.38p ( HL info ). At present you would still be in pocket despite dilution. Say 25% up. ( no dividend )
In between there has indeed been highs and lows, and no doubt money made and lost.
You could look at other investments in minerals to see how your cash has fared ( as of today ) from float or over 2 years. First float and then now
UKOG. 0.57 on float. Now 1.85. This despite lots of dilution. So 300% up, say. ( no dividend ).
But there are others that have not fared so well.
Wolf ( Tungsten Mining )
Float. 20p. Now 2p. ( 80% Loss )
Igas. Not a happy story for long term investors ( as JTL will support no doubt ).
Then, maybe some other shares which have not done so well
Float. 200p. Now 30p
Or maybe investing in Renewables ( from a 2013 )
Bluefield Solar income fund. Float. 100. Now 123 ( 23% over 5 years ). Dividends 5%
Greencoat UK wind. Float 100. Now 129 (29% over 5 years ) Dividends 5%
So on and so forth
So… those investing on AIM in such new start companies such as UKOG and so on can well expect volatility and maybe large gains and losses. In addition companies always put their best case forwards as they can within RNS requirements ( primarily jam tomorrow ).
Those investing there will know this. Those who do not will invest in funds ( such as renewable funds noted above ) or others.
But so far, long term investors in the Weald are in profit, though I would not advise anyone either way. DYOR and invest accordingly
Yes, further drilling from the same site, just what we have been trying to say to that minority in Balcombe who dislike protesters more than they dislike polluting, climate-busting industry in their parish.
They dislike themselves?
I can see why.
What investors are they flfs? Like all companies, some investors will have made money from Angus, some will not. Just the same as with M&S.
Try looking back over the last 18 mths at the share price for Angus. If someone could not have made money from that, they certainly should not be investing in anything. You have a serious blind spot. Most investors in AIM companies are NOT long term holders of the shares, they dip in and out, so volatility can be quite a positive. Oil exploration companies are always volatile in that respect. AJLucas-0.18-0.41 in 12 months, lots of money made there I suspect.
In recent times that was the way many an investor viewed Tesla.
I appreciate your sympathy for investors, but many will require none of it.
Actually hewes62, I have invested small mounts in Igas, Angus and UKOG in the past. I have made a positive return in all 3 situations. I did so to replace my wife’s car and then funded a hybrid. Other funds we had reserved for that purpose had been spent on an air sourced heat pump and a new, better insulated, conservatory roof. Does that make me a nasty capitalist or someone doing their bit for the planet?
It certainly doesn’t make me wealthy. I am not amongst those who travel to Gatwick two or three times a year to fly off on their holidays. Good luck to them. Currently, we can each chose what to do with our income. Some may return from a disappointing holiday thinking it was a waste of money.
Would I make a positive return if I repeated those investments? Maybe/maybe not, maybe there are better opportunities now than then. (Perhaps not IKEA-I see they are protesting against having one of those in Lancing, Sussex.) And, perhaps not Tesla.
I have done the lottery each Saturday over the same period and made nothing.
Meanwhile, Fawley Refinery expanding together with Gatwick and Heathrow airports, large LNG facilities required around the world starting with the Canadian one announced yesterday and possibly another $200 billion investment required in other parts to keep pace with increasing demand. Yes, alternative energy sources will grow within that increasing demand but will not replace that sort of energy requirement for many years to come. Current price trends confirm that. No wonder UK on shore activity is increasing.
All that LNG helps to replace coal it seems ( to the dismay of my mining chums ).
Time to book the annual holiday in Cornwall, tho the rest of the street seem to enjoy Mexico, Peru, Maldives and so on ( and look at you as if you have stepped off the bus from the planet zog if you mention carbon footprint ).
Trust you can enjoy Cornwall now with the Lizard left intact! If you get round that way, maybe ask the locals what they thought about the Swansea Lagoon-but make sure you are wearing your running shoes!
Noticed today that the world population now contains more middle class than poor. I know that is somewhat to do with definition, but it is the single statistic that will have the biggest impact in the near term-including energy requirement and potential success for Brexit. There is pretty clear data on what people want to enjoy when they feel they arrive into the middle classes.