Blockade of the Horse Hill site in Surrey, 20 August 2018. Photo: RobHarbinson.com
The company behind oil exploration at Horse Hill near Gatwick Airport has released further details of the extended well test currently underway.
UK Oil & Gas plc said today analysis of the first stage of testing of the Portland formation suggested that the well had connected to a reservoir containing 7-11 million barrels of oil in place (OIP).
The company described this as:
” a robustly viable commercial volume for a single well”
Stephen Sanderson, chief executive of UKOG said:
“The Portland continues to out-perform our initial expectations and looks set to provide the production and cash flow base that can underpin UKOG’s future growth.
He said the extended well test on the Kimmeridge Limestone 4 layer (“KL4”) had now begun:
“Our immediate operational focus now switches to the Kimmeridge extended well test, which, if successful, has the potential to make Horse Hill one of the UK’s leading onshore producing oil fields and to help unlock the value within our extensive Kimmeridge asset portfolio in the Weald.
Last week, UKOG revealed plans to extend the site and increase the number of wells to six.
DrillOrDrop key facts page for the Horse Hill oil site
5/10/18 Headline picture changed
Categories: Industry
DRILL OR DROP? 
[Comments removed by moderator]
[edited by moderator] I personally consider this an excellent news page but there are other news sources that I do not like so I don’t read them. I don’t claim to understand everything that is taking place or proposed for this site but I have read that a form of “fracking” is being undertaken using acid? It would seem there are a number of ways to stimulate wells and fracture rocks and perhaps if this is “tight” geology, that may be why it is described by the all encompassing term fracking? I would welcome info on this as I am genuinely interested.
https://drillordrop.com/everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-acidising-detailed-study-by-kathryn-mcwhirter/
It has been fractured by mother nature and free flows.
Brainwashed antagonists have been campaigning at the wrong location all along!!
KatT
There has not been any acid fracking carried out on this well. They are just flow testing at present.
The concern seems to be that companies may want to frack the Kimmeridge Shale or acid frack the micrite.
See Frack Off. …. ‘Fracking the Weald’ which details the concerns.
Hi KatT, that’s a good study you link to and you have it about right. As an Angus Energy executive said to a friend of mine why would we need to fracture rocks when we can turn them to toothpaste?
You should be aware that the Portland is conventional, unlike the Kimmeridge which is not.
Think far, far lower well density, so less industrialisation of our villages and countryside. Many people who take exception to unconventional think producing from the Portland is ok, because they understand that there’s virtually no onshore conventional left now so it’s insignificant.
Be careful of trying to learn from these posters because, as ever, what you see depends on where you stand.
Hawes62 comment is fair (often is, Hawes is on DoD because he is ex industry and interested in the process) RM8 LMX?, well I see RM8 as DoD’s Father Jack, but instead of waking up to shout DRINK! before falling asleep again he posts BUT THEY ARE NOT FRACKING! under articles where there isn’t a single mention ofthe F word.
If the Weald oil companies want to produce from the Kim but away from their usual exploratory targets of faults and their surrounding damage zones (AKA naturally fractured areas according to Sanderson/ Liargas/ Vonker) they will need to stimulate (Frack/ matrix acidise/ acid frack etc)
[Comment removed by moderator]
[Edited by moderator] CEO of Angus energy name is Mr Vonk .Not Vonker
Mr Sanderson Mr lenigas.Mr Vonk Have said NO Fracking what so ever.[edited by moderator] Do some research Dorkinian
Thanks for the advice Mr Slade but my research already goes far deeper than what these major shareholders of the Weald exploratory companies say, Although Sanderson does provide some useful insights on his vision for the Bakken like industrialisation of the Weald and has lobbied to be allowed to frack here.
What the hell are you talking about Bakken oil field .This is not USA. Where is your proof Sanderson has lobby for Fracking in the Weald .[edited by moderator]
How do you know how much natural fracturing there is underground ? The Kimmeridge is a tight clay formation and oil wont flow through clay , you may get an initial flow which will soon deplete and then you will need stimulation , something that you obviously don’t have .
Likewise Jono, how do you know how much natural fracturing there is underground ? Have you run flow tests to prove the claimed depletion you talk about?
You can figure out (or at least a petrophysicist / petroleum engineer can) from various image logs and the data collected from the flow tests, primarily the bottom hole flowing pressure, and build up pressure after shutting in the well.
The total volume produced and the pressure depletion (reservoir pressure before minus reservoir pressure after producing the volume) provide a connected volume of connected secondary porosity which is the connected fracture volume. From this recoverable reserves for that well can be estimated and an idea of commerciality (or not) gained.
If this well has proven connectivity of 7 – 11 million barrels of oil then it is a very good onshore well for UK. It states in place; recovery should be high so assume around 30% – recoverable reserves of 2 – 4 million barrels.
There is no fracking taking place at any of the weald basin sites,but i think some one is digging a hole for himself about the diggers in a field,looking for a pastie
I prefer green energy.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-renewable-energy-investment-targets-wind-solar-power-onshore-a8358511.html
Angus energy Ukog have said no fracking at their sites .END OF .Maybe a new post to inform protestors Mr seaman .Then they might get it
UKOG have announced a lot of things Gordon. Not all of them appear to have been accurate, especially concerning the sites that they have abandoned to this point. END OF?
I wonder what Stephen Sanderson means exactly by “The Portland continues to out-perform our initial expectations and looks set to provide the production and cash flow base that can underpin UKOG’s future growth”. Do people largely believe that he means that money from the sale of conventional reserves in the Portland will fund further explorations to unlock Kimmeridge reserves? (Which a notable number of credible experts believe can only be unlocked by stimulation, or what used to be commonly described as fracking). Or do people think that he means that the optimism that might well result from his announcement of a considerable reservoir of conventionally accessible Portland oil could possibly stimulate a further surge in private investment to replenish the coffers of UKOG for Kimmeridge speculations? In other words, whose money do we think that Stephen Sanderson is talking about when he refers to a “cash flow base that can underpin UKOG’s future growth”. As people who have read previous posts of mine will know I’m more than a little sceptical as to how UKOG’s business model has been formulated. I’m also a little concerned that conventionally extracted Portland oil extraction could act as something of a smokescreen for other activities, given that in the past UKOG have failed both to carry out the site restoration work incumbent upon them and, if memory serves me correctly, have constructed a significant side-well at a site without the relevant permissions being in place. I’d be really interested to hear opinions of all shades regarding these concerns of mine.
Agreed.
Jonathan
I thought it was Angus that drilled a side track and hence the issue of permission from the council ( noting that there remains a difference of opinion between Angus and the Council ).
UKOG drilled a sidetrack as a solution to a problem with the well they were drilling, sidetracked in the target formation and had all permission in place ( HSE etc ). It is not unusual to sidetrack round a problem.
Their planning permission was for the drilling of that well.
Angus sidetrack was one into a different formation, from an existing completed well?
There remains NO difference of opinion between Angus energy and West Sussex council They where granted retrospective planning for side track well at Brockham site 8 to 2 in favour on the 08/08/2018 Fake news my friend hewes62
Gordon. Whether permission was retrospectively granted or not is irrelevant. As is the margin by which it was retrospectively approved. The side well was drilled without permission. Therefore. Not ‘fake news’, as you like to call it at all.
Gordon Slade
Re fake news
The difference of opinion is that Angus consider they did not, and do not require planning permission for the sidetrack. The councils opinion is that they did.
Hence, there remains a difference of opinion on this issue, as noted in the Angus Communication of 8 August 2018, in which they say that their retrospective planning permission was ‘without predjudice’, to their opinion on the matter.
This is an important legal point for future development in the Weald and indeed for onshore oil in the East Midlands where the Angus view has been the norm.
I hold a small shareholding in Angus, UKOG and Alba ( and renewables … balanced portfolio and all that ) so I have quite an interest in what goes on.
If you have information to share that indicates that either the council has backed down, and in future similar situations, they do not consider p,sinning permission is required, or that Angus have backed down, it would be good.
I did write an earlier reply, which seems to have gone to DOD heaven….so that may turn up alongside this one.
My point was if the council remained to have different of opinion or had a problem .They would not have voted by big majority in favour of retrospective planning .I know there was a confusion over this side track .But now it is resolved End of .Glad you are investing in Uk oil for UK plc
Gordon Slade
Thanks
You are perfectly correct. Apologies.
It WAS Angus Energy Hawes62 who drilled the side well at Brockham, and not UKOG.
My opinion is you should do some more research Jonathan! For someone who voices concerns about UKOG you do seem to be ill informed about them and your memory serves you poorly.
Not being nasty, but many of your problems within your text can be rectified via some simple research, away from the anti “experts”. In regard to the Portland what was being suggested is that extraction from the Portland could take UKOG to a situation where production output is funding the subsequent exploration and development of HH, and elsewhere. Obviously the suggestion is based upon recent tests, and may or may not emerge as totally accurate. An RNS has to be factually based, but those facts can be impacted over time eg. will oil prices stay where they are?
They are already testing the Kimmeridge at HH, which has long been planned. Ideally, they appear to want to produce from both at HH, with the Portland supplying the funding to do that. Can’t see how they can be more explicit about it until they have analysed all the results from the ongoing tests.
There is no application for anything other than conventional at HH. You would see any variation from that within any new application submitted, so smokescreens should not be an issue. The only smokescreens I have seen at HH are the anti fracking banners being wafted about by the antis.
Hello Martin.
Nothing to assuage my fears there. Yes, I agree. RNS statements are ‘based on fact’. So are many novels. In my limited experience Mr Stephen Sanderson’s RNS statements generally take an incredibly optimistic view as to outcomes, and have often in the past been proven to have been extremely over optimistic. And I am far from alone in holding that opinion. Regarding the use of Portland oil revenues to subsidise future explorations, are you saying that there will therefore be no further UKOG share issues? Up to this point that appears to have been the ONLY way that UKOG have generated any revenue. And what sort of oil deposits may these revenues be utilised to develop? Portland? Because as far as I understand things the majority of UKOG targets within the PEDL license areas that they hold are in fact Kimmeridge targets. And as far as I understand it the Kimmeridge deposits are of tight oil, that will require some form of stimulation if it is to be extracted in commercially viable quantities. Do you know any different? Regarding smokescreens, our current government’s redefinition of the term fracking away from the standard internationally recognised definition of the term is already a smokescreen. Regarding your ‘not being nasty’ but suggesting that I need to do more research, I have read the statements that have been put out by UKOG. That doesn’t necessarily mean that I take them at face value. I have read previous statements that have proven over time not to have represented the situation that they claimed to. Allow me to point out also that there were no permissions for several of UKOG’s actions in the past (unauthorised side well drilling, out of permitted hours vehicle movements, etc.), but they went ahead with them anyway. As for anti-fracking banners, many of us do fear fracking (as defined everywhere else except the UK) by stealth, which is why they appear at all protest sites. Genuine concern, not a smokescreen.
Anyhow. Thank you for your opinion Martin. At no variance whatsoever with UKOG’s recent statements, and therefore largely unilluminating.
Has anyone else any information that might help me to understand this situation better?
Best regards,
Jonathan.
Jonathan Plumrigdge .You got all your fact wrong .Did you not see what Angus energy flow rate where from the kimmeridge last week .Up to 3000 BTO Without a pump .Without stimulation .Without Fracking Flow to surface under own pressure .Do some research my friend .Ukog will do the same this week as will Brockham angus energy other site in coming weeks .It one Huge oil /gas reserve.Much needed for Brexit UK plc
Ps side well drilling was done at Brockham by Angus energy which they now have permit/licence for now from wscc on the 8th Aug 2018 More research needed before you post fake news
Dear Gordon, The side well at Brockham was drilled without permission. Fact. The fact that permission was later granted AFTER THE SIDE WELL HAD ALREADY BEEN DRILLED does not change that. So not ‘fake news’ as you call it. Fact. (My surname is Plumridge by the way). And no, I haven’t read any reports as yet of commercially viable flow rates from unstimulated Kimmeridge deposits in the Weald. Maybe you could let me know where they can be found? That would be really helpful. Much more helpful than telling me to ‘do some research’. I do as much research as I’m able, as I’m really concerned about speculative drilling by opportunistic companies with no positive track record in my back yard. Do you live anywhere near any of the Weald drilling sites Gordon? What I believe to be much needed for Planet Earth PLC by the way Gordon is much more environmentally clean alternative energy and much less environmentally dangerous fossil fuel. Are you an investor in any of these schemes by the way Gordon? If not, would you mind telling me what your interest is? Very best wishes, Jonathan.
Last week Angus energy reported huge flow test from their over site Balcombe from the kimmeridge .Without Fracking stimulation It flowed to surface up to 3000 bopd .Look on angus energy plc Yes l live near balcombe and are very happy about these companies starting to produce oil gas on shore for UK plc .Instead of importing half way around the world .Not Eco fraiendly at all They have production licence at Brockham just need to turn tap on in next few weeks Great for job local economy.And they said they would give % of profit to local economy .Win Win for all
Can you reply to my question about Angus energy flow test from Balcombe .Which was an unstimulated Huge up to 3000 Bop flow test from the kimmerridge .No Fracking .No acid stimulates.No pump .Conventional flow to surface under it own pressure. I quote .You said .You have not read of any commercially flow rate from the kimmeridge .Have you gone to Angus energy Plc website and educated yourself with more research Jonathan
Okay Gordon. Here’s my reply. First of all the Balcombe well was only tested over a very short period of time, and so the flow rate achieved over that time period really can’t be held to be conclusively illustrative of possible flow rates over extended periods of time. Secondly, a number of geologists with an interest in the oil industry have testified that commercially viable quantities of oil and gas held in Kimmeridge deposits can only be continuously extracted over extended periods of time with the deployment of some form of stimulation. This is because most of the oil and gas is held ‘tightly’ within the geology. Small reservoirs of oil and gas at geological fracture points may indeed flow freely, but in order to sustain viable flows over any length of time it is highly probable that some form of artificial fracturing will prove necessary (fracking in other words). If you invest in these schemes Gordon they’ll have your money. And that’s a win for them. You’ll only see a win for yourself if they generate high revenues over extended periods of time. In the meantime, your soil and water supply are both at risk. The crucial thing is not what happens when you drill into a small zone of geology that you KNOW to be highly fractured. The crucial thing is how do you get to the rest of the oil and gas that is held tightly in zones that aren’t highly fractured. And yes Gordon. I have visited the Angus Energy website, but ‘research’ involves mental effort, thought, and reflection, not simply the reading of reports as presented by interested parties. Very best wishes, Jonathan.
As I indicated, Jonathan, more research needed!
I did point out there was NO application for anything other than conventional at HH, that a new application would be needed to vary that. If one such application is made, it will be apparent. Yet, you wish to manufacture that a “fear of fracking by stealth” is valid? Valid to scare, and used as such. You also continue to peddle the story that UKOG drilled an unauthorised side well. I pointed out that was false, someone else has completed that information for you yet you persist with the incorrect statement.
Doesn’t look like genuine concern to me. But, then, I try not to get concerned about a subject until I have looked at the facts around a situation. Goodness, on the anti platform I would have to travel half way round the world and hold up a no fracking banner in the Middle East just in case they did something by stealth I was not happy with relating to the oil currently being used in Sussex and Surrey. What they are doing by stealth, and not by stealth, might be a good reason to look at all the facts about UK oil production. Talking of stealth, interesting little piece on TV recently about past surveillance of the Middle East during a past conflict. The USA was refused permission to land their spy planes on the return leg in the UK as the UK was so reliant upon oil supplies from that region. Now, you can dislike such things going on, but that information is now widely thought to have prevented a much wider conflict, and forced an end to the one going on.
UK is a long way off phasing out oil and gas and the alternatives are not economical currently to force that. Those antis who want to force that before the economics are right might like to let us know where they would like the money to come from-NHS, Education, Energy Bills? Certainly won’t be the “rich”, because they are always a lot more financially mobile than the rest of us.
But back to UKOG. Will they have to raise more funds? Heavens knows. They are still testing. Absolutely no different to any other company of a similar nature and always will continue until a serious revenue is there either to fund all work, or attract funds via other channels. Tesla has a somewhat similar issue. If SS turns to pot, then is the time to worry.
Hello old friend. I think that you and I vary in our feelings as to what ‘conventional’ and ‘unconventional’ drilling techniques might look like. For the sake of clarity and consistency I prefer to use the definitions that appear to be used practically everywhere else in the world except for the UK, where apparently interested parties have seen fit to redefine the terms. In addition to which, I’m not at all convinced that financially challenged speculative onshore exploration companies always play by the rules. I’m still waiting for example for any signs of site restoration at non-productive sites. And how was it that a non-authorised side well was drilled at Brockham? To be clear, I’ve no desire whatsoever to ‘manufacture’ any form of fear of fracking by stealth. I, and others, are genuinely afraid that our government’s redefinition of otherwise internationally agreed upon terms will indeed lead to drilling techniques that anywhere else in the world WOULD be termed fracking. So. Good to hear that you try not to get concerned about subjects until you know something about them. Can I help you with any information regarding global warming or the dangerous levels of soil and water contamination generated by onshore oil and gas exploration companies in the USA and Australia? Decoding what you say, I think that you are somehow trying to indicate that I might be hypocritical with regard to my own oil and gas usage. Well I don’t feel myself to be so. I am doing everything I can in fact to minimise it. And I don’t approve in the slightest of our country’s dealings with the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, a worrying entity if ever there was one. You talk of UKOGs share issues as ‘no different to any other company of a similar nature’. And I agree. They are no different to those of any other nouveau arrivé opportunistic and purely speculative endeavour. They are different though, are they not, from the money raising activities of established entities with a proven track record. And why are THOSE entities not involved in oil exploration in the Weald? I can see why you’d want to drag Elon Musk into this. He is of course much revered amongst those that are seeking alternative energy options. It’s a little bit of a facile comparison though isn’t it Martin? Elon Musk has actually created things that will prove to be of use to us. Pot or no pot. What has Stephen Sanderson done apart from line a few people’s pockets with highly questionable share revenues? If Tesla fails it will probably be a glorious failure about which someone will probably make a movie. I can’t see that happening if UKOG fails. What I feel has truly ‘gone to pot’ is our current government and its backing of lame and three-legged horses. Gambling on outcomes that it can’t possibly foresee. Is it any wonder that it backs other over-optimistic chancers? As for when we might be able to phase out environmentally destructive energy sources, a lot will depend on political will and political priorities. With the right backing I struggle to see why we shouldn’t be in a position to drastically reduce dependencies sooner rather than later. 2020 for example, looks like being a breakthrough year for electric vehicles (with VW for one expecting to release an entire range of highly economical electric vehicles with long ranges and fast recharging times). Finally Martin, why do you question my concern? What else would motivate me to spend so much time writing to you?
Very best wishes,
Jonathan.