Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

[jtidsbadly] 28/12/2021 18:21

JA51: was that tall apparatus beside the piles lorry a crane to remove them from the lorry, or was it something to hammer them into place? The piles seem to have been dumped.

I think the LCC will simply wave all this through. The flare, however, was the major concern of the Saltfleetby council, if I remember right, and how can the EA or the HSE approve all this without starting from scratch? Do you think Anguish have sent them the new plans?

[davemarn] 28/12/2021 17:08

Matters notNow I know who the derampers are, they couldn't hide in a formal document it's an easy response. Being funded too means they are able to buy shares and sell at losses to give impression of a lack of confidence in market, as their donations support the negative narratives to ensure pressure remains from a non investor perspective. So no, no longer major shorters thesis I am retracting that more or less. These 3 groups may well be directly targeting angs and others to economically damage them IMO via forums.

[davemarn] 28/12/2021 17:08

Excellent post by a newbieMatiasTestePosts: 1Price: 0.65Strong BuyMerry ChristmasToday 09:25BrockhamFantastic news with 2.8mmbls of oil in playDraft permit decision minded to approve injection of waste water back into a well should increase pressure and oil output. Anyone thinking it's bad news are either Brockham Activists, Weald Activities or Others as exposed in the decision document. 3x groups some well funded through voluntary donations with support from the odd Geologist to make case of negativity credible. Decision note made clear that Angus Energy are addressing many concerns.SALTFLEEBYWell it's very good news that the design will remove generator's from outside areas (within site) to inside. Permit variation decision going to Local Planning Officers and not a committee so relatively speedy decision in my opinion.Note too that the increase in Gas Flare size is to meet safety requirements and not a whim, so that should be part of the Environment Agency assessment. Condensate tower could be for additional processessing.I recall that Angus Energy did a 3D seismic and localised mapping of wells. Did they find higher pressures?Anyone over reacting about first gas delays are being melodramatic. Their paperwork dates back November/early Dec. The placement RNS clearly spells out need to address safety etc. So nothing new IF FIRST GAS isn't delayed.I'll be buying more irrespective of further modest raises!

[davemarn] 28/12/2021 11:28

New tweetHTTPS://twitter.com/angusenergyplc/status/1475783585638584323

[davemarn] 28/12/2021 11:25

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/how-to-exercise-stock-warrants/

[davemarn] 28/12/2021 10:58

Brockham Snippets: 2Response received fromBrockham Oil WatchSummary of actions taken or show how this has been covered1. We have reviewed the Supplementary HRA provided by the Applicant, and compared this with our information and conceptual understanding of the location. We are satisfied that the assessment within the Supplementary HRA has been carried out in accordance with the Environment Agency’s Groundwater risk assessment for your environmental permit guidance and Onshore Oil and Gas Sector guidance. We are satisfied that the potential risks to groundwater have been adequately identified and addressed.2. We agree with the conclusions of the Supplementary HRA that there is negligible risk of pollution to groundwater from the re injection of produced water. See the key issues section on groundwater in this decision document for more information.3. We are satisfied that groundwater monitoring is not required at the site because there is no significant risk to any known shallow groundwater receptors and sufficient mitigation measures and procedures are in place to prevent any impact on groundwater. See the key issues section of this decision document for more information.4. The Water Acceptance and Unloading Procedure (BRO-ANGPR-O0004-3) referenced as an operating technique in the permit confirms that produced water imported onto site will be sampled and salinity measured with a conductivity monitor at an independent laboratory. The produced water sample will also be mixed with produced water from Brockham Oilfield to assess for any visual precipitation. It should also be noted the Operator is not able to accept produced water from other sites until a bespoke RSR permit has been issued.5. As explained in the key issues section of this decision document, we are satisfied that the Supplementary HRA demonstrates the importance of well integrity and includes robust re-injection procedures, and detailed monitoring procedures.6. Seismicity linked to oil and gas operations is the remit of the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA). We are satisfied that sufficient information has been presented on the geology and hydrogeology in the HRA in accordance with the Environment Agency’s Groundwater risk assessment for your environmental permit guidance and Onshore Oil and Gas Sector Guidance. The permitted groundwater activity is to re-inject a maximum of 24m3 per day of produced water into the Portland Sand Formation for production support. This is a minor volume of produced water that will be re-injected over a period of 7 hours per day. Hydrocarbons and produced water will be extracted from the Portland Sand Formation and produced water will be re-injected at a pressure below the fracture pressure of the formation. The operating procedures specified in the HRA will ensure that there will be no over pressurisation of the reservoir.7. Direct discharges to groundwater are prohibited under the Water Framework Directive and Schedule 22 of the 2016 Regulations except under certain exemptions. This is explained in more detail in the key issues, groundwater activities section of this decision document.8. Planning permission is outside the remit of the Environment Agency’s permit determination. It should also be noted the operator is not able to accept produced water from other sites until a bespoke RSR permit has been issued.9. We acknowledge historic issues in respect to operator competence. There are sufficient controls in the permit to both ensure the Operator will operate in a competent manner, and also to allow us to take measures to bring them into compliance as required. The changes as part of this variation will update the activities permitted and help ensure future compliance.10. We are satisfied with the accuracy of the information provided in the Supplementary HRA. Regarding the Waste Management Plan, this is a working document that the operator updates during the lifetime of the permit. This is covered by condition 4.3.7 of the permit.11. The Environment Agency has not requested additional 2D seismic data or 3D seismic data. We are satisfied that sufficient information has been presented on the geology and hydrogeology in the supplementary HRA in accordance with the Environment Agency’s Groundwater risk assessment for your environmental permit guidance and Onshore Oil and Gas Sector Guidance.12. The Upper Tunbridge Wells Sand and Ashdown Sand Formation are present at approximately 229m and 381m below ground level. The Upper Tunbridge Wells sand is overlain by 229m of impermeable Weald Clay which prevents the direct recharge of the Upper Tunbridge Wells sand from the surface at this location. There are no groundwater quality samples from the Upper Tunbridge Wells Sand and Ashdown Sand at this location and these formations are not used for water supply at this location. The Upper Tunbridge Wells sand outcrops 13.5km to the south east of the site, therefore groundwater in the Upper Tunbridge Wells at 229m below ground level is likely to have a long residence time and be of poorer quality. The Ashdown Sand Formation is also overlain by the impermeable Grinstead Clay and Wadhurst Clay. We are satisfied with the operator’s interpretation that these formations are unlikely to contain potable groundwater and groundwater monitoring of these formations is not required.13. The Portland Sand Formation is the producing oil reservoir. Produced water can be re-injected into formations from which hydrocarbons have been extracted to encourage further production of hydrocarbons under the exemption specified in paragraph 8 (a) of Schedule 22 to the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016. The re-injection of produced water into geological formations from which hydrocarbons or other substances have been extracted is the best environmental option to minimise the exposure of the public to ionising radiation from the disposal of radioactive waste and is in accordance with the UK NORM Waste Strategy.The Purbeck Anhydrite overlies the Portland Sand formation and acts as the reservoir seal trapping hydrocarbons in the geological structure. The field bounding fault to the south has downthrown the Purbeck Anhydrite against the Portland Sand which also acts to trap hydrocarbons. Overlying the Purbeck Anhydrite is the Purbeck Beds which consist of approximately 20m of impermeable claystone and mudstone with some interbedded limestone. If the field bounding fault throw is greater than 15m, impermeable claystone and mudstone would also be downthrown against the Portland Sand Formation and would continue to trap hydrocarbons and formation water in the reservoir.The supplementary HRA confirms well construction for the BRX3 re-injection well and an evaluation of the Cement Bond Log results for the surface and intermediate sections of the re-injection well. We have reviewed the well construction and the evaluation of the Cement Bond Logs results and we are satisfied that the re-injection of produced water poses a negligible risk to groundwater in the Upper Tunbridge Wells Sand and the Ashdown Formation. In addition we are satisfied that the operating procedures set out in the HRA are sufficient to mitigate the risk to groundwater.14. We have reviewed the supplementary HRA in detail and as part of our assessment sent the applicant two Schedule 5 Notices requesting further information. The Notices have been complied with and we are satisfied that sufficient information has been presented on the geology and hydrogeology in the supplementary HRA in accordance with the Environment Agency’s Groundwater risk assessment for your environmental permit guidance and Onshore Oil and Gas Sector Guidance.15. NORM waste are routinely encountered in deeper geology associated with onshore oil production. NORM wastes are controlled through a separate permit as described in the key issues section of this decision document.

[davemarn] 28/12/2021 10:51

For our resident Anti Drilling ActivistsHTTPS://twitter.com/zopelyforver/status/1475449016519430144

[davemarn] 28/12/2021 10:34

AlsoThese anti drilling activists have 18 months have been kicked in the teeth with Environment Agency draft permit decision. Point by point they've been taken down on #Brockham #Angs draft permit note. It's brilliantly played and the likes of #Mirasol #HeadintheSand hate exposure

[davemarn] 28/12/2021 10:34

Matters notNow I know who the derampers are, they couldn't hide in a formal document it's an easy response. Being funded too means they are able to buy shares and sell at losses to give impression of a lack of confidence in market, as their donations support the negative narratives to ensure pressure remains from a non investor perspective. So no, no longer major shorters thesis I am retracting that more or less. These 3 groups may well be directly targeting angs and others to economically damage them IMO via forums.

[davemarn] 28/12/2021 10:34

Excellent post by a newbieMatiasTestePosts: 1Price: 0.65Strong BuyMerry ChristmasToday 09:25BrockhamFantastic news with 2.8mmbls of oil in playDraft permit decision minded to approve injection of waste water back into a well should increase pressure and oil output. Anyone thinking it's bad news are either Brockham Activists, Weald Activities or Others as exposed in the decision document. 3x groups some well funded through voluntary donations with support from the odd Geologist to make case of negativity credible. Decision note made clear that Angus Energy are addressing many concerns.SALTFLEEBYWell it's very good news that the design will remove generator's from outside areas (within site) to inside. Permit variation decision going to Local Planning Officers and not a committee so relatively speedy decision in my opinion.Note too that the increase in Gas Flare size is to meet safety requirements and not a whim, so that should be part of the Environment Agency assessment. Condensate tower could be for additional processessing.I recall that Angus Energy did a 3D seismic and localised mapping of wells. Did they find higher pressures?Anyone over reacting about first gas delays are being melodramatic. Their paperwork dates back November/early Dec. The placement RNS clearly spells out need to address safety etc. So nothing new IF FIRST GAS isn't delayed.I'll be buying more irrespective of further modest raises!

[jtidsbadly] 28/12/2021 10:20

I have a couple of questions about the flare:

1: Did the 20 December Twitter photos of the flare base preparation show the preparation of the base in the new place, for the putative new and larger flare, or will they have to do this work again?

2: in the 1 October CPR, it said this about EA approval, under “risks”:

“Delays in receiving Environment Agency permissions for the surface facilities (expected latest 17th December 2021); awaiting the results of noise modelling and flare gas system details.”
So presumably EA approval will be given once Anguish can tell them what new flare they are getting?

I dare say half the site will be under water at present.

[davemarn] 27/12/2021 22:56

Brockham Snippets: 1Response received fromKEEP Kirdford and Wisborough ‘Green’Summary of actions taken or show how this has been covered1. See our above response to Brockham Parish Council (Point 1.).2. There are no changes proposed to the existing permitted drilling activity as part of this variation. As explained in the key issues section of this decision document we are satisfied that the Supplementary HRA demonstrates the importance of well integrity and includes robust re-injection procedures, and detailed monitoring procedures.3. Flowback fluid is a product of hydraulic fracturing. No such activity has been applied for and so we consider this concern not relevant to the existing variation application.4. The consultation section of this decision document sets out how we publicised the application. All application documents, including the non-technical summary, were available to view as part of that consultation.5. This concern is not relevant to the application as no changes are proposed to the existing drilling activity.6. Seismicity linked to oil and gas operations is the remit of the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA). Seismicity in the USA is not relevant to this variation application. We are satisfied that sufficient information has been presented on the geology and hydrogeology in the HRA in accordance with the Environment Agency’s Groundwater risk assessment for your environmental permit guidance and Onshore Oil and Gas Sector Guidance.7. NORM waste are routinely encountered in deeper geology associated with onshore oil production. NORM wastes are controlled through a separate permit as described in the key issues section of this decision document. Issues relating to the shale gas industry and hydraulic fracturing are not relevant to this variation application as the permit is not for these activities.8. As explained in the key issues section of this decision document we are satisfied that the Supplementary HRA demonstrates the importance of well integrity and includes robust re injection procedures, and detailed monitoring procedures.

[davemarn] 27/12/2021 22:08

Brockham Snippets: 1Response received fromKEEP Kirdford and Wisborough ‘Green’Summary of actions taken or show how this has been covered1. See our above response to Brockham Parish Council (Point 1.).2. There are no changes proposed to the existing permitted drilling activity as part of this variation. As explained in the key issues section of this decision document we are satisfied that the Supplementary HRA demonstrates the importance of well integrity and includes robust re-injection procedures, and detailed monitoring procedures.3. Flowback fluid is a product of hydraulic fracturing. No such activity has been applied for and so we consider this concern not relevant to the existing variation application.4. The consultation section of this decision document sets out how we publicised the application. All application documents, including the non-technical summary, were available to view as part of that consultation.5. This concern is not relevant to the application as no changes are proposed to the existing drilling activity.6. Seismicity linked to oil and gas operations is the remit of the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA). Seismicity in the USA is not relevant to this variation application. We are satisfied that sufficient information has been presented on the geology and hydrogeology in the HRA in accordance with the Environment Agency’s Groundwater risk assessment for your environmental permit guidance and Onshore Oil and Gas Sector Guidance.7. NORM waste are routinely encountered in deeper geology associated with onshore oil production. NORM wastes are controlled through a separate permit as described in the key issues section of this decision document. Issues relating to the shale gas industry and hydraulic fracturing are not relevant to this variation application as the permit is not for these activities.8. As explained in the key issues section of this decision document we are satisfied that the Supplementary HRA demonstrates the importance of well integrity and includes robust re injection procedures, and detailed monitoring procedures.

[davemarn] 27/12/2021 22:08

Matters notNow I know who the derampers are, they couldn't hide in a formal document it's an easy response. Being funded too means they are able to buy shares and sell at losses to give impression of a lack of confidence in market, as their donations support the negative narratives to ensure pressure remains from a non investor perspective. So no, no longer major shorters thesis I am retracting that more or less. These 3 groups may well be directly targeting angs and others to economically damage them IMO via forums.

[davemarn] 27/12/2021 22:08

Excellent post by a newbieMatiasTestePosts: 1Price: 0.65Strong BuyMerry ChristmasToday 09:25BrockhamFantastic news with 2.8mmbls of oil in playDraft permit decision minded to approve injection of waste water back into a well should increase pressure and oil output. Anyone thinking it's bad news are either Brockham Activists, Weald Activities or Others as exposed in the decision document. 3x groups some well funded through voluntary donations with support from the odd Geologist to make case of negativity credible. Decision note made clear that Angus Energy are addressing many concerns.SALTFLEEBYWell it's very good news that the design will remove generator's from outside areas (within site) to inside. Permit variation decision going to Local Planning Officers and not a committee so relatively speedy decision in my opinion.Note too that the increase in Gas Flare size is to meet safety requirements and not a whim, so that should be part of the Environment Agency assessment. Condensate tower could be for additional processessing.I recall that Angus Energy did a 3D seismic and localised mapping of wells. Did they find higher pressures?Anyone over reacting about first gas delays are being melodramatic. Their paperwork dates back November/early Dec. The placement RNS clearly spells out need to address safety etc. So nothing new IF FIRST GAS isn't delayed.I'll be buying more irrespective of further modest raises!

[davemarn] 27/12/2021 16:45

For bionicHTTPS://twitter.com/zopelyforver/status/1475507939574222851

[davemarn] 27/12/2021 16:41

Carefulhttps://drillordrop.com/2021/06/30/ukog-protest-injunction-granted-against-five-campaigners/

[davemarn] 27/12/2021 16:00

For our resident Anti Drilling ActivistsHTTPS://twitter.com/zopelyforver/status/1475449016519430144