Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Flogging the phosphorus horse | Main | A scrap of good news »

The UK just struck oil

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (34)

I expect our green lefty loons will move quickly to shut this down.


Feb 16, 2016 at 11:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterMailman


Feb 16, 2016 at 12:12 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

Don't count your eggs but the BBC reported this 2 days ago "The company later claimed there could be up to 124 billion barrels of oil under the Weald Basin."

Todays press release is "steady early oil rate in excess of 463 barrels of oil per day over a further 7.3-hour period, in an approximate mix of over 99% oil and less than 1% water."

Oil price is volatile but an LT average $100/barrel thats $40K/day $14m+/yr so not yet billions

"Heavily regulated, more than a year to start getting production permits etc., so depends how enthusiastic the govt is"

Feb 16, 2016 at 12:23 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Drill, baby, drill!!

Feb 16, 2016 at 12:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaul Homewood

Not very big, that rig. Bit like a regular building site.

Feb 16, 2016 at 12:32 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Too late. They're already there!

Feb 16, 2016 at 12:36 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Can some one state how many "avg wind turbine days" = energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil ?

...Putin's Russian 'holiday' airline has just started organising Surrey walking tours for bored Russian ex-servicemen.

Feb 16, 2016 at 12:42 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

They expect higher flow rates from a horizontal well with standard reservoir stimulation techniques.

The full press release is here

Feb 16, 2016 at 12:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

A spit into a large leaky bucket.
No amount of oil will ever satisfy the car / credit nexus .....little auld Ireland is consuming 10kbd more diesel since the crash , less then 1 kbd is a sick Joke.

The 20th century inflationary consumer credit dream / nightmare is over.
However it will finish us before we see a end to its waste based consumption cycle.

Feb 16, 2016 at 12:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Dork of Cork

So, protesters again already camping on site - good communications links and not too far for a BBC journo / crew to visit regularly - we'll be seeing more of Horse Hill.... but not much of the encampment eh?

The BBC's "reporting" pongs as much as ever...

The berk brigade are ramping up demo activity - Caroline Lucas no doubt on site at some stage.

Feb 16, 2016 at 12:48 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Re: stewgreen

100 barrels is about 170MWh or a wind turbine equivalent of 25MW

Feb 16, 2016 at 12:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

O/T stuff removed.

Feb 16, 2016 at 1:02 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Eh 170MWh/day ? .... a 25MW turbine ops at 25% load factor
ie 6 hours per day = 150MWh per day so you meant 170MWh is per day
So with turbines usually about 2MW and not more than 6MW thats about 4 to 13 large turbines worth

So even this test field is a bigger producer than a large windfarm

(After new planning permission, a production well would come 1000 ft thru field horizontally and thus achieve flow rates of magnitudes more )

Feb 16, 2016 at 1:02 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Cap the wells and leave it . Oil glut doesn't make it economic to continue. Sorry

However if Russian and Syrian forces go into NATO member Turkey chasing Syrian Rebels and IS and the price of oil starts to go back up then get back to it.

Feb 16, 2016 at 1:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamspid

Re: stewgreen

Its pedantic I know but I meant 100 barrels of oil is equivalent to 170MWh
The per day production of the well is 100 barrels of oil.

Wind Turbine equivalent (MW) = (1.7*bpd/24)/0.28 = 25MW
Solar equivalent = (1.7*bpd/24)/0.1 = 71MW

bpd = barrels per day

Feb 16, 2016 at 1:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS


If it's economic then the company will extract it and we collect the tax, but I'd agree it's hard to see how this is going to be wildly profitable in the current climate. Unless the oil is *very* good and commands a premium.

Still, I'm sure the blob will do its very best to ensure it all stays in the ground. I'm sure Doug Parr is already preparing statements to tell us why living in the dark and cold will be essential for the survival of the planet. Carbon bubble etc. etc. Yawn.

Feb 16, 2016 at 1:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Crook

Since fraccing is banned above 1000m TD they are limited to procedures that aren't described as fraccing. As was pointed out a while back, the legislation imposing the 1000m limit likely restricts fraccing to the North, where the strata are deeper.

Upon completion, Phase 2 and Phase 3 operations will move to the shallower
Upper Kimmeridge limestone and Portland sandstone zones at approximately 840 and 615 metres
below ground level, respectively.

Even shallower.

100 boe:

BP use 7.33 bbl/tonne, 12 MWh/toe, so 100 boe is 1200/7.33 or 163.7 MWh. 465 b/d is therefore over 30MW, or 10 turbines actually operating optimally, or the average output of 40 at good onshore sites.

If they think there is 124bn bbl OOIP with a 15% recovery rate, that's 18.6bn bbl, or 34 years' supply at 1.5 mb/d UK oil consumption.

Feb 16, 2016 at 2:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterIt doesn't add up...

I got sidetracked by stewgreen asking what the wind turbine equivalent was of 100 barrels per day. It is actually producing 463 bpd so the equivalents are:

Wind Turbines = 117MW
Solar = 327MW or about 4% of the entire UK photovoltaic installation or 32,000 solar installations.

Feb 16, 2016 at 2:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

It's a start, what we need to do is now, to shoot the green meanies - euphemism - natch.

Oil, coal and gas - the means to our future, the only problem with that is Corbyn and the full range of left wing SWP affiliates who would like Britain to become a third world disaster zone and or back in the dark ages.

Feb 16, 2016 at 2:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

You would have thought the Green Blobbies would have appreciated this energy supply in South East England. It will reduce the amount of French nuclear electricity being imported via Kent.

Feb 16, 2016 at 3:01 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

To those suggesting Hungry Horse is uneconomic: please review the production at nearby Palmer's Wood (just 12 miles away by the M25).

Note that most of it was at 20$/bbl prices in the 1990s, and despite the tiny volumes, they found it worthwhile to drill again in 2010 (producing a small uptick in production).

At HH they have two more strata they wish to test at shallower depths that might add more oil from the same well. As has been pointed out, production development would see the reservoir exploited through lateral drilling, radically increasing the production. Remember that the main test was through a 32/64ths inch choke. (Tradition in the oil industry is to quote the choke diameter in 64ths).

Feb 16, 2016 at 3:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterIt doesn't add up...

I appreciate comparisons of output with windmills (they are not "turbines") but does anyone have an approximate comparison for capital expenditure?

Feb 16, 2016 at 3:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Spilligan

> does anyone have an approximate comparison for capital expenditure?

Look at the wholesale price for a comparison.

The current spot price is about £40/MWh or 4p/kWh. The feed in tariff for wind factories is 14p/kWH and, apparently, anything below this makes them uneconomic.

This means that conventional oil and gas, that has no guarantee that its output will be purchased, are profitable at 4p/kWh.
Wind factories, that have a guarantee all their output will be purchased, are just about profitable at 14p/kWh.

From this I'd conclude that wind costs at least 5x oil and gas.

Feb 16, 2016 at 4:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Mike Spilligan

Maybe we could call them wind factories? They are most definitiely NOT windmills - they don't mill anything. I object to the use of the word "windmills", as it conjures up bucolic images of small-scale, architecturally attractive buildings which blend nicely and harmoniously into the landscape. Wind factories, or whatever is an accurate term for them, are anything but that.

Feb 16, 2016 at 5:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

For many decades, the US maintained a "Naval Petroleum Reserve" at Elk Hills. In 1995, the Clinton administration put Elk Hills reserve on the block, and it was sold off to Occidental Petroleum in 1998. I suspect someone will recommend establishment of a similar UK emergency reserve, based on the volatility of the MidEast and the current low price of oil. To be effective, however, investment in at least one field processing unit and one refinery would be necessary, so some gasoline production would result.

Feb 16, 2016 at 5:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterFr. Jack Hackett

Mark H, 5:19 pm:

I think birdmashers or subsidy generators are more accurate terms. Wind factories implies they are doing something useful other than filling the pockets of their owners.

Feb 16, 2016 at 5:44 PM | Registered CommenterSalopian

@ Fr. Jack Hackett

We already have one. Or we used to a few years ago. Up in the north west. People who worked on it had to sign official secret act. Dunno its current status

Feb 16, 2016 at 5:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterS Matthews

Now don't get me wrong but...........this find (above) is no real discovery, is it?

Without looking it up, going back in time to (moi) uni stratigraphy and petroleum Geology studies, the Kimmeridge clay formations have classic oil producing potential, Wytch Farm being the exemplar but the Jurassic North Sea OIL deposits are in similar formations - though, I stand to be corrected.

Feb 16, 2016 at 6:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

Athelstan, 6:15 pm:

Correct, from the OU's Earth's Natural Resources course, the North Sea deposits are in the same Kimmeridge Clay Formation - mudstone sequence with a Type II kerogen content.

Feb 16, 2016 at 7:07 PM | Registered CommenterSalopian

Salopian at 5.44pm on 16th Feb.

You're quite right, I'm hoist on my own petard. They might not mill anything, but they're not useful enough to be called wind factories.

Subsidy generators it is, then. :-)

Feb 17, 2016 at 8:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

"Kimmeridge Clay Formation - mudstone sequence with a Type II kerogen content."


Ta for that Salopian.

Feb 17, 2016 at 10:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

This industry estimate suggests £1-2m per MW capital cost for wind. That is for peak nominal capacity of course, and doesn't include maintenance costs or costs for backup power, and almost certainly underestimates the costs of reinforcing the grid when peak wind becomes a significant share our generation.

Feb 17, 2016 at 11:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterIt doesn't add up...

I wonder why they no longer appear to be targetting the Triassic mentioned in the planning permission:

The initial target is located in the Portland Sandstone some 499 m below ground level (bgl), the secondary target is the Corallian Sandstone some 1143 m bgl and the third, the Triassic at approximately 2143 m depth. It is proposed to drill a deviated borehole which would reach its final target some 800 m north west of the above ground site. The initial geological target, the Portland Target, is relatively shallow and therefore the well deviation would not begin until close to the base of the Portland Sandstone at approximately 671 m. From that point the borehole would build angle, but to minimise the chance of difficulties with the wellbore, the build rate is programmed not to exceed 3.0o per 30.5 m up to a maximum angle of 22.6o.

Feb 17, 2016 at 12:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterIt doesn't add up...

Panic in the Greenery!

Feb 19, 2016 at 7:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterCull the Badgers

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>