Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:14

Thanks Bionicdog

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:13

Latest CPR overridden with the £750K recent raise.You either support ANGUS ENERGY or don't.I fully support my investment choice here.

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:13

As for additional employees at the lowest end an additional person or two. Wow huge traffic increase if they are locals who liftshare or cycle it!

[bionicdog] 29/12/2021 10:12

That's because you're thick.

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:12

No problem with raises I'll probably keep buying CHEAPER ANGUS SHARES

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:11

Cheers bionic

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:10

Neighbour has already given a positive response

[bionicdog] 29/12/2021 10:10

WELCOME TO THE SPAM THREAD
DaveMarn
3Put
Solo4Yous
ALL THE SAME IDIOT

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:10

Ok mateI'll put something else in the header then.

[jtidsbadly] 29/12/2021 10:09

JA51: I’m not very familiar with county council planning procedure. If they leave a revised application to the planning officers to decide, does this not tend to foreshorten the process?

If I were Saltfleetby council or a neighbour of this project, I’d be seriously worried. The roads leading up to and beyond the site are, I’m told, very narrow and uneven. The new plans will mean more traffic. There will be more cars going to and fro with the the increase in the numbers of permanent staff as well. Yes, the noise from a much bigger flare will be an issue, as will its output of pollutants. Is that twitter picture of the new flare type really what they will be putting up?

If they want to raise a decent amount of money next month, they’ll need to do something to get the price up. Even then, there will have to be at least one more raise six or eight weeks later, surely? They must be eating through their loan money and they had next to no cash at the end of March this year. The latest CPR seemed to predict a £750,000 shortfall in the next quarter, even on the old schedule. It’s a proper horlicks, what?

[bionicdog] 29/12/2021 10:02

I'll put something else in the header then.

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:01

Brockham Snippets: 4Brief summary of issues raised Summary of actions taken or show how this has been coveredGas flaringConcerns raised about gas flaring This concern is not relevant to the application as no changes are proposed to the existing permitted drilling activity and flare.Sampling and monitoringConcern about how the Environment Agency will ensure the produced water samples are genuine and whether they will be collected by an independent agency. The Water Acceptance and Unloading Procedure (BRO-ANGPR-O0004-3) referenced as an operating technique in the permit (Table S1.2) confirms that produced water to be imported onto site as well as produced water from Brockham 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 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.Environmental impactConcern about the impact on nearby watercourses. Produced water is derived from the extraction of oil from oil-bearing strata and as such would be expected to contain hazardous substances in the form of naturally formed dissolved hydrocarbons. The principle of re-injecting produced water for support of oil production activities is acceptable under the current regulatory regimes in the UK.Additive chemicals intrinsic to the extraction of oil will also be present in any re-injected produced water.We have reviewed the Supplementary HRA and are satisfied that the return of this produced water into oil-bearing strata will not result in any unpermitted discharges to other water-bearing strata. As such we are satisfied there will be no significant impact on nearby surface watercourses.Concern that the associated risks are too great to justify a declining production from an already depleted reservoir. We have assessed the risk associated with the groundwater activity as described in more detail in the key issues section of this decision document. We are satisfied that the purpose of injection is to support production. The amount of oil produced from the reservoir is not relevant to our decision.Concern about flooding from increased groundwater. Re-injection takes place into a deep formation sealed by faults and a low permeability cap overlying the formation. There is no plausible pathway for the produced water to enter a shallower formation and exit at the surface.Concern about local air quality given that many parts of Surrey are already breaching air quality targets. There are no changes proposed that will have an impact on air emissions from the site. We consider this concern is not relevant to the application.Concern about the presence of Red Kites in Surrey and the need to update the environmental impact assessment for the site. There are no changes to point source emissions to air, sewer or surface water as a result of the variation. We consider that the application will not affect any site of nature conservation, landscape and heritage, and/or protected species or habitats identified. We therefore consider this concern is not relevant to the application.Concern about the safe storage of fluids. We have accepted the operator’s assessment of risk and are satisfied that appropriate measures and procedures are in place to ensure that all liquids, including produced water and chemicals, will be stored in accordance with the necessary containment measures to ensure there is no risk to the environment.Regulation and complianceConcern about the failure of regulation of the geological aspects of unconventional oil and gas sites with severe implications for environmental safety. Unconventional oil and gas sites are those involving hydraulic fracturing of shale which is not occurring under this permit. This is therefore not relevant to this determination.Concern about who would be responsible for remediating any contamination to groundwater. Our approach to any environmental pollution incident involves investigation into the significance of the incident, identification of the source and consideration of the pathway. Any action taken depends on the outcome of such an investigationConcern about the impact on biodiversity, including the food chain. 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.Concern over the Environment Agency’s finances and resources not being sufficient to effectively regulate the site. Compliance activities will be undertaken by the Environment Agency area enforcement teams after the issue of the permit to ensuring compliance with the permit condition. Sufficient resources will be made available by the Environment Agency to comply with our regulatory requirements.AmenityConcern about increased road traffic, especially as tankers having been seen arriving at the site yet the site is apparently not producing oil at the current time. The planning authority determines whether the activity is an acceptable use of the land. It considers matters such as visual impact, traffic and access issues, which do not form part of our Environmental Permit decision making process. We consider the concern about increased traffic is outside of the remit of the Environment Agency.Regarding the presence of tankers at the site, this information has been passed to the relevant member of the regulated industry team.Concern about increased noise pollution. There is no increased risk of noise as a result of this variation. We consider this issue not relevant to the application.The determination processQuestions relating to whether this application has been assessed in detail, specifically has a “2018 reportâ€? been updated in 2021. We assessed all documents submitted as part of the application and various requests for information. We are satisfied that the operator provided all required documentation for this type of application and that it was up to date.No consultation documents have been supplied to those impacted, for example, a leaflet through the door. 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. We are satisfied we have fulfilled our obligations in this regard.See the consultation section of this decision document for more information.There was no cement bond log available for the re-injection activity, 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.

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:01

Brockham Snippets: 3Response received fromWeald Action GroupSummary of actions taken or show how this has been covered1. NORM 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.2. 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. Produced water is derived from the extraction of oil from oil-bearing strata and as such would be expected to contain hazardous substances in the form of naturally formed dissolved hydrocarbons. The principle of re-injecting produced water for support of oil production activities is acceptable under the current regulatory regimes in the UK. Additive chemicals intrinsic to the extraction of oil will also be present in any re-injected produced water.We have reviewed the Supplementary HRA and are satisfied that the return of this produced water into oil-bearing strata will not result in any unpermitted discharges to other water-bearing strata.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.3. The applicant has not applied to stimulate the formation with acid or undertake any acid treatment process. We consider this concern not relevant to the existing application.4. Produced water is derived from the extraction of oil from oil-bearing strata and as such would be expected to contain hazardous substances in the form of naturally formed dissolved hydrocarbons. The principle of re-injecting produced water for support of oil production activities is acceptable under the current regulatory regimes in the UK.Additive chemicals intrinsic to the extraction of oil will also be present in any re-injected produced water.We have reviewed the Supplementary HRA and are satisfied with the return of this produced water into water-bearing strata.5. See previous responses in the above tables regarding faults and seismic activity.6. 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.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.8. Produced water is derived from the extraction of oil from oil-bearing strata and as such would be expected to contain hazardous substances in the form of naturally formed dissolved hydrocarbons. The principle of re-injecting produced water for support of oil production activities is acceptable under the current regulatory regimes in the UK.Additive chemicals intrinsic to the extraction of oil will also be present in any re-injected produced water.We have reviewed the Supplementary HRA and are satisfied that the return of this produced water into oil-bearing strata will not result in any unpermitted discharges to other water-bearing strata and there will be no harm to human health.9. See previous responses in the above tables regarding operator competency.10. We assessed all documents submitted as part of the application and various requests for information. We are satisfied that the operator provided all required documentation in terms of injection rates/pressure and seismicity. Further information on these issues is provided in the above tables of responses.We are satisfied that the operator’s management system and associated procedures will ensure appropriate staffing during operational hours.The operator has procedures in place in the event of accidents or emergencies, including fire. A fire prevention plan is not required for the addition of a groundwater activity to the permit.11. The facility may be checked by the Environment Agency in two ways:a. an assessment - a desk based check of whether the operator is complying with their permit, for example checking they’re sending in required information.b. an inspection - where an officer visits the siteInspections can be planned ahead or be unannounced. Environment Agency staff will look around the site and ask questions. We may ask to see documents or talk to staff. The frequency of inspections depends on the type of site and whether there are any on-going compliance issues that require additional visits. In normal circumstances we would anticipate inspecting a site of this type at least twice a year.12. 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.13. See the responses in the above tables regarding our assessment of the impact on groundwater. 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.

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:00

AlsoThese anti drilling activists have moaned fr 18 months and 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] 29/12/2021 09:59

BionicExcellent 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] 29/12/2021 09:58

Ja51oiler you failed to apologise for your error, didn't you say you were man enough to do so? Perhaps when you you look in the mirror you see a man with a pot belly, hair growing from your ears and nose , the requisite dangle bits, although I imagine, very very small but you also appear to be completely spineless. Jtisbadly your horrid outburst was noted , a little childish name calling is it not? As regards your comment about 'cleverer people' well that did spark a hearty guffaw. Just because the twitter post is dated today does not date the photo. To assume that is naive.

[bionicdog] 29/12/2021 09:53

Not really working is it?

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 09:49

AlsoThese anti drilling activists have moaned fr 18 months and 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

[ja51oiler] 29/12/2021 09:35

Dear George

We know you read these BB. May I just remind you that your PP for the sidetrack is also obsolete now with your revised plans and will also need to be re-applied for!

This could well be another excuse for a can kick, and I would hate to think of us MUG PUNTERS getting diluted again come March/April after the inevitable January raise!

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 09:22

AlsoThese anti drilling activists have moaned fr 18 months and 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

[ja51oiler] 29/12/2021 09:04

JT

I'm not sure this is going to get rushed through. It's 13 weeks from application for LCC planning, isn't it? The flare is now a different design now 12 Metres, not 4metres and the newly prepared acoustic report won't be pleasant reading to the locals! It will be interesting to see who is appointed as the case officer and who is sent out letters.

Of course, you are right that the EA application with both the revised flare and acoustic report from only this month is going to push that EA decision back, They should really put it back out to public consultation again given the vastly increased size of the plans!

Looks like the "MORON" lives in Luton then....LOL