The industry regulator has approved the use of an oil well at Horse Hill in Surrey for disposal of waste water, the site’s parent company announced today.
In a statement, UK Oil & Gas plc said the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) had granted formal consent for recompletion of the Horse Hill 2z (HH2z) well for water reinjection.
Earlier this month, the Environment Agency also gave permission for the reinjection at Horse Hill of produced water that comes to the surface during oil extraction.
Reinjection can improve the flow of oil and dispose of waste liquid more cheaply.
“With both the Environment Agency and NSTA permissions in hand, UKOG can now further expedite its plans for produced saline formation water reinjection at Horse Hill during 2022, which, if implemented, would remove the need for costly transportation and disposal of produced water at distant third-party sites.”
Shares in UKOG rose 2.46% today, closing at 0.125p.
Nearly 500 members of the public, as well as parish councils and campaign groups, responded to a consultation by the Environment Agency in 2019 on proposals for reinjection and other changes at Horse Hill.
The HH2z well is a sidetrack, spudded on 19 October 2019. It is currently listed as shut-in on the NSTA database.
Last week, UKOG said the NSTA had agreed a one-year extension to the agreed Retention Area programme for PEDL137, the licence which includes Horse Hill.
The company now has an extra year in which to drill a second well into the Kimmeridge formation at Horse Hill. Drilling must begin before 30 September 2023, UKOG said.
The Horse Hill site was granted planning permission in September 2019 for a four more production wells and 20 years of oil extraction. So far, none of the extra wells have been drilled.
The permission has been challenged in the courts by local campaigner, Sarah Finch. She has applied to take her case to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the UK.
Horse Hill currently extracts oil from the Portland formation. But it has drilled into the Kimmeridge. UKOG has said it is looking at the viability of restarting Kimmeridge production and drilling more wells into the Portland.
The most recent data from the NSTA, for February 2022, puts production at Horse Hill at 59 barrels of oil per day. This one of the lowest levels recorded in a month since formal extraction began in March 2020.
Tagged as: approval, challenge, disposal, Environment Agency, extraction, formation, granted, Horse Hill, Kimmeridge, North Sea Transition Authority, NSTA, oil, permisson, planning permission, Portland, produced, production, reinjection, Sarah Finch, waste, water
Phil C, It took 118 lines of intricately convoluted narrative to try to convince others that the dangerous elements produced by UKOG’s oil/gas/water extraction will not be safely returned to their original location is totally incorrect and untrue.
You are now adding that UKOG didn’t mention a seperator either, another thing they didn’t have to do, you are also bringing into your narrative FRACKING which UKOG do not do and have stated in the past have no intention to do. What they did mention is what they had to by law, because you wanted to discredit them you started incorrect accusations of what YOU thought they should have done to fit your obvious dislike of the oil/gas industry.
Whilst we are on the subject of what has been previously said, here is your opening statement:-
” as for re-injection of radioactive toxic waste water ,the inevitable results of poisoning aquifiers, polluting land and destroying the crops are only too well known. What can’t be allowed to be re-injected will be sprayed on roads and dumped into streams and rivers to further contaminate the environment, just as they do in the US of A, But have a good day anyway”
No mention by you of re-injection fluids ( correct terminology ) having to be treated or otherwise.so you must have agreed at the time that it was not necessary. As i have admitted in an earlier post i was unfortunately originally confused by the wrong use of the HEADLINE terminology ” wastewater ” which Paul Fresco kindly apologised for, in which i replied in a correct manner stating “as everyone knows wastewater has to be ” cleaned up” which is fact. And once more…..re-injection fluids are not classed as wastewater by the Environment Agency ( who I note you are also trying to discredit )….which is also fact.
So in answer to another poster, no not a 0-0 draw……2-1 to me so I’m still in the Premier League.
Stick to facts Phil C , your first post on the subject on re-injection (in the UK) was incorrect as re-injection is so deep it doesn’t do the damage you suggest.
I’m so glad i visited the Environment Agency website to enable me to understand the full correct regulations and not have to accept incorrect information, Drill or Drop are not guilty of anything intentional, only an admitted unfortunate missuse of the word “wastewater”,
You’ll probably reply in your own inimitable way, try to respond in an accurate honest way and maybe we can come to an agreement on the facts, who knows, hopefully in less than 118 lines. Many many years ago I got 100 lines for being a naughty boy, But from that I learned MY lesson
There is an old Zen story. It’s quite appropriate for your outburst of indignation.
The Lady At The River
A senior monk and a junior monk were travelling together.
At one point, they came to a river with a strong current.
As the monks were preparing to cross the river, they saw a very young and beautiful, fine young lady also attempting to cross.
The fine young lady asked if they could help her cross to the other side.
The two monks glanced at one another because they had taken vows not to touch a woman.
Then, without a word, the older monk picked up the fine young lady, carried her across the river, placed her gently on the other side, and carried on his journey.
The younger monk couldn’t believe what had just happened.
After rejoining his companion, he was speechless, and an hour passed without a word between them.
Two more hours passed, then three.
Finally, the younger monk could not contain himself any longer and blurted out:
“As monks, we are not permitted a woman, how could you then carry that woman on your shoulders?”
The older monk looked at him and replied: “Brother, I set her down on the other side of the river, why are you still carrying her?”
I have been carrying the fine lady of truth and honesty without dropping her, for days now.
Then I reached the other side of the divide.
Where I set the fine young lady of truth and honesty down carefully on the riverbank. And I continued on my journey.
Brother, why are you and your colleagues, still carrying her?
Enjoy the rest of your journey. Go your own separate way if you wish.
I will move on my own journey.
Phil C, the problem you have is your story would work well for someone who actually knows what the truth is, amazing that your defence has ended up in the fantasy section of the library, it’s not the other side of the river you’re at, it’s the other side of the truth, and the beautiful young lady is actually an old farmers wife smelling of old bull. It matters not to me what you are saying, you have all these times given me the opportunity to inform and enlighten people of the true facts, you have done your best but unfortunately did not succeed in your quest….good luck in your journey on the wrong side of truth and honesty….remember the boy who cried wolf,
This was e-mailed to myself today, by someone who knows the truth. The so-called pristine waste or produced water that is to be merely intercepted, separated out, and reinjected. Is not in fact, from the bore itself, though presumably there is some. Water imported from whatever source, tankered in, or piped from the mains, and is then “treated” to coin a phrase, with various additives before injecting during the extraction process.
So the waste/produced water is not straight from the formation at all, it was introduced there. So there is very little of that waste/produced water, that was there before the extraction process stated.
Not only that. The chemical additives which are also introduced, those weren’t there before, either. Therefore, the extracted the waste/produced water, that was not there before with all its additional chemical additives, also becomes radioactive from the formation level kilometres down.
If that is not reinjected after whatever interception/separation, that waste/produced water is tankered off-site for treatment. That costs £$millions to be treated in a licensed, permitted treatment facility. Even then, the resulting waste water can only be used for registered permitted purposes. It is very expensive to do that. Which is why in the USA, they still illegally spray it on the roads. It’s cheaper. That’s the real bottom line. Follow the money.
So, no wonder the fossil fuel industry wants to reinject the waste/produced water back into the wells. But not before adding even more chemicals to the already toxic radioactive mix.
So this little fictional fantasy story that is bandied about so often, saying it’s all natural and came from the formation in the first place. Is sheer nonsense. The radioactivity, the chemicals, the other contaminants derived from the formation, all those get “re”-injected down to wherever the fossil fuel company wants to be, perhaps miles from the actual site. Under sites of special interest, nature preserves, protected sites. Who knows where. Then there is the risk of earthquakes, since injecting these toxic waste/produced fluids is putting pressure on the surrounding formations it is aimed at. In the USA and Australia, toxic waste water pops up into ponds, springs, lakes and streams, into public and private drinking water wells, and formerly clean natural water aquifers.
No wonder some would prefer to use weaponised invective and false narratives, rather than truth.
“This was e-mailed to myself today, by someone who knows the truth. The so-called pristine waste or produced water that is to be merely intercepted, separated out, and reinjected. Is not in fact, from the bore itself, though presumably there is some. Water imported from whatever source, tankered in, or piped from the mains, and is then “treated” to coin a phrase, with various additives before injecting during the extraction process.”
Ask your truthful someone where the water to be re-injected at Horse Hill comes from if not from the producing formation? Is it trucked in from Pennsylvania or Texas or the North Sea or Sellafield or the local sewage works? We would like to know. The clue is in “re-injected”? And “produced saline formation water reinjection”.
Pristine? If the produced water was “pristine” they could bottle it and sell it as mineral water…..and make more money than the small oil production they currently have.
Your truthful someone is perhaps alluding to water flood or stimulation, even fracking God forbid. As I have posted previously on this article, water injected for water flood or stimulation or used in drilling fluids imported from off site will be treated with oxygen scavenger / corrosion inhibitor. Am I the truthful someone? Please keep up.
As Paul moderator noted, perhaps it is time to drop this discussion as you seem unable to accept reality on this particular issue PhilC.
Then perhaps you could do the same, Paul? You almost used too many words there. Judging by your reply, my source was perfectly correct. Fascinating.
Unfortunately, I appear to accept the reality of any issue more than yourself. Whether it’s inconvenient or not.
No Paul, you know yourself that any fossil fuel extraction process requires thousands of gallons of water to be injected into the formation to assist in extraction. And that water has all sorts of trade secret additives. With fracking it’s even more, volumes in the range of 5-10 million gallons per well are typical, there are many wells in the 2-18 million gallons range.
Which is a fact that due from the time delay from those earlier times of the truth has become less well remembered. I don’t recall seeing the issue of thousands to millions of gallons of water injection mentioned when the issue of fracking was raised yet again to attempt to overturn the fracking moratorium. Now perhaps I see why it’s not mentioned.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that there are no requirements to pre-inject water into the formation in order to extract the oil or gas by what ever method, in avoidance of the word fracking? And I’m not talking about reinjecting, but pre-injecting water treated with various toxic chemicals before anything is extracted. The end result of waste/produced water, in addition to extracted oil or gas, is then treated again to be reinjected in order to save the cost of £$millions for treatment at a fully licenced and registered treatment facility.
The source of injected water to produce the extracted oil or gas in the first place, is local, as you very well, to coin a phrase, know. So is that why there is all that false narrative and fake weaponised invective being bandied about. It appears that there are more skeletons in the fossil fuel cupboard about this reinjecting of waste/produced water, then first meet the fan.
So are you telling me that there is no water that is injected into the formation, in order to extract the end result?
If any, water is injected with added chemicals prior to extraction and then treated again and reinjected. Then I am quite correct in saying that it didn’t originate from the formation in the first place.
Do you realise, that if you guys hadn’t tried so hard, and so transparently, to attempt to discredit everything I say? When I have always, throughout, reported the substantiated verified and documented facts. There is only one reason that the substantiated facts are considered to be so dangerous to some, and that is, that there is something to hide.
There you are. Precisely the number of words required to clarify the issue. No more. No less.
Always a pleasure, Paul. As for your….esteemed colleagues? No more than expected.
Many oil fields (high gas oil ratio, over pressured and those with aquifer support, and most if not all gas fields, do not require pressure support from water injection for most of their commercial life. Why inject water if you don’t need to? Some oil fields use water injection for pressure maintenance to keep the flowing reservoir pressure above the bubble point to prevent gas break out in the reservoir which causes significant production problems. Those fields will use some externally sourced water (treated) and produced water if there is any. Enough words?
“Many oil fields”. So not all. Not a definite “No” then. Do you have any inside information of how much water, in the nearest thousands of gallons, or none at all, that was pre-injected for the bores at Horse Hill for example? I’ll look at that myself too.
Also. “high gas oil ratio, over pressured and those with aquifer support, and most if not all gas fields, do not require pressure support from water injection for most of their commercial life” does not apply to fracking does it. As I pointed out. And that not too popular term is already being talked about as requiring the overturning of the present fracking moratorium. And has been discussed right here on Drill or Drop recently. Though, apparently, not yet at Horse Hill.
I don’t have any inside information on any oil and gas wells other than those I worked on. Everything at Horse Hill is in the public domain and has been studied to death by antis trying to catch them / the EA / the OGA / the HSE out. Technically from what I have read on here the answer is probably zero thousands of gallons. Unless they undertook injectivity tests or stimulation or lost circulation while drilling? Injecting any fluid into a productive reservoir can create formation damage / skin and negatively impact productivity. It can also reverse wettability of the pores which is something particularly bad for productivity.
As you know I am not a reservoir or petroleum engineer but my first five years in the industry were working as the latter and therefore I have some knowledge of reservoirs and production etc.
When I switched to drilling engineering and later on, operations and development management, I always placed a very strong emphasis on not injecting any fluid into the reservoir formations as our performance could be measured by skin damage and productivity. In fact pretty much everything we did from design through execution and production was engineered not to lose any fluid into the producing formations.
Any fluid that was injected was by design for injectivity testing / stimulation / water injection for development (dedicated wells).
Fracking is used for low productivity wells with low permeability and low porosity (exception limestone reefs etc).
“High gas oil ratio, over pressured and those with aquifer support, and most if not all gas fields, do not require pressure support from water injection for most of their commercial life. These wells exhibit high inflow performance, high porosity and high permeability. No “fracking” required.
This is interesting, Paul. See **:
Unconventional Wells – New Techniques and Processes https://www.dontdrillthewight.co.uk/unconventional
Although there is no statutory definition of Unconventional Wells for ‘tight oil and gas’ extraction, these have been described as wells which: Technical Detail
Are drilled vertically then sloped horizontally into reservoirs into permeable formations limestone, chalk and sandstone allowing oil or gas to flow using acid stimulation techniques.
***Use less than 10,000 cubic metres (2.2 million gallons) of fresh water in the whole drilling process.**
**Are sometimes hydraulically fracked to assist in increased flow of fuels to the surface (But are not classified by the government as FRACKING because they use less than 10,000 cubic metres of fluid)**
Can be drilled from the surface of any appropriate region regardless of its status as an area of environmental protection, natural beauty, water protection zone or heritage site
Can be excavated in multiple directions horizontally from each well pad covering one hectare or more on permitted sites, extending under other properties and land without other landowner permissions.
Are difficult to maintain high yields of flow over long periods and deemed therefore as uneconomical. Therefore they are abandoned and decommissioned and new wells are drilled from the same well pad. Up to 10 per well pad are possible.
Click to access 5b2419_cd84766a553844ad8adc87ff0559e916.pdf
Construction of an Unconventional Oil Well Phase 1 Exploration (Normally 4 months to 1 year) 1. A well pad up to 1 to 2 hectares is created on land cleared for the purpose and concreted, lined with a non porous layer, fenced off and lit 24 hours per day during the life of the well.
** 2. Materials, structures, chemicals and an average of 430,000 gallons (67 HGV tanker loads) of water per well bore will be hauled by multiple HGV transporters and tankers to this site where it will be stored for use. Surface spills from tankers and storage tanks en route or on site are documented as common. **
HH is not, and has not, been fracking.
Water has been a problem on this site, as there is a lot of it mixed with the oil, that has needed to be separated, trucked away and disposed of. DoD has made constant reference to this, but this episode questions why do they bother? (I can understand what they have been stating-and I am not even their target audience.) The intention is now to simply return it to where it came from, and in so doing achieving benefits to the environment by reducing the trucking need and maybe to oil output, that Paul has already explained. And yes, it should be a more economic way of managing the issue.
No. I didn’t say that it was fracking, the subject came up, so i used it again, nothing wrong with that. It was the moderator who first raised the issue of fracking, not me. I simply continued the introduced narrative. Steve then accused me of raising it, which I proved was incorrect.
That is all words that have notoriously been used for precisely the same purpose, rather than return to reality. I have indeed provided substantiated, verified documentation, and provided links to everything I say regarding reinjection at Horse Hill. Whereas, for your own “contributions”? None.
I will always return the accusations to whence they came. As has been proved many times.
As for Benny Hill. Isn’t that comedy fiction and fantasy? Oops!
Yes, have a nice day. I intend to in my garden and avoiding all the attempts to create hysteria from the report to be released today, from a senior Civil Servant, who seems to have been unaware of what Civil Servants have been doing for decades, especially on Fridays. I shall ponder in my garden when it was UK stopped thinking about outcomes and just upon process. Not too much pondering needed, the advent of the Internet. Prior to that, Churchill was not expected to survive on powdered egg whilst he carried out his job that others who had to have powdered egg, couldn’t or wouldn’t do. Such is progress (?)
I shall await tomorrow and see what Rishi has to offer and how it will be targeted. He seems quite good at giving money away, so I have quite high expectations. It is the other side of his job where he has yet to prove himself.
I didn’t mention a separator because I didn’t need to, by your own odd logic. You see how your own strange logic works both ways.
My initial comment was about the reinjection of toxic radioactive waste water, because that is what the text from the previous report described. Just as I reported. It was you who also mentioned waste water too. And only later changed your mind and contradicted yourself. As Paul Seaman said, the terminology is somewhat vague and apologised for it. So there is no discrepancy there, as I have said so many times, I reported what was provided previously:
“Waste water” is a bit of a vague term and apologies if it has caused confusion in this article. In the oil industry though, it does appear to be used to include produced water – see for example page 1 of this document https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/documents/oil-and-gas-study_draft_05-2019.pdf”
Even hewes62 said the headline was correct, and that waste water was an “all encompassing term”. So no go there.
Also, I hadn’t mentioned fracking at all, until Paul Seaman did in the same post:
“Produced water doesn’t include flowback fluid coming, for example, from fracking. Operators are encouraged to re-use this in the fracking process;”
So the subject had already become mentioned. I followed that subsequently look at the dates and times, and I make no aplogies for doing so, since the subject had already been raised. So no go there either.
So to paraphrase your last remark, in answer to “another poster”, no not a 0-0 draw……2-1 to myself, so I’m still in the Premier League by your own odd fantasy football definition.
I do stick to the facts, Steve, as I am proving only too successfully right here. In fact, all I have reported was the facts as they were provided. Nothing more, nothing less. So no go there either.
“I’m so glad i visited the Environment Agency website to enable me to understand the full correct regulations and not have to accept incorrect information, Drill or Drop are not guilty of anything intentional, only an admitted unfortunate missuse of the word “wastewater”,”
I’m pleased you found redemption for your incorrect information and contradictions, and I am pleased that you are absolving Drill or Drop of all responsibility. Since it was your gripe with Drill or Drop and UKOG’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson, for those unfortunately confused statements of your own.
Phil C, your comment “I didn’t mention a seperator because i didn’t need to” is fair comment, fact. I totally accept that statement. It is not strange logic then is it and as you have used that analogy you must surely agree that I was correct in saying Steven Sanderson didn’t mention “treatment”because he also didn’t have to, because it didn’t apply to UKOG in this instance.fact. Your attempts to back up your original post (unfounded and flawed) because although alot of what you are saying about the oil/gas (legal and lawful) industry may be factual, it just does not apply in the case of UKOG at Horse Hill.
You have an absolute right to protest about what you feel to be wrong about anything. But it would be helpful if you used your “information” in it’s proper context and made sure it was absolutely factual and used correctly ie :- making sure it applies to the subject in debate. So many people on here are now trying to help you in this matter but is apparent you don’t want to listen, again your choice.
To use another old saying, “there are non so blind as he who will not see”. Look beyond the horizon grasshopper, you will see a much different world.
With apologies to the visually impaired, obviously.
Except, there is a flaw in that argument when applied outside of the story, and into other “stories” of fiction.
A small point of detail to some, but not lost upon others who note what has needed to be excluded.
I am with you Steve, in your attempt to define what are facts.
The comment section has moved away from that, unfortunately (IMHO) but will not be lost upon those who may actually read this site to become acquainted with facts, which may be fortunate. Maybe that is why there are so few new contributors?
If I take something out of somewhere, where it sat without causing any issues alongside of it’s friend oil, and then plonk/re-inject it back into the same somewhere without it’s oily friend why on/under earth should it suddenly become a different something that attracts the magical powers that it will then escape from where it happily sat without escaping? It must be that it has suddenly seen the light of day and is energized to get back to it and find it’s oily friend! Yes, I know that sounds idiotic, but that is what is being suggested. In the words of Benny Hill, “Cobras”.
PhilC – what is “interesting” in these two links? Hopefully everyone on this BB understands the process involved in drilling wells by now. The 10,000 cubic meters threshold has always been odd but they had to pick a number…..and needed to help Cuadrilla?
Another way of looking at this is the cost of drilling fluids. These often used to cost over $100 / bbl (35 Imperial gallons). If you 430,000 gallons (from the link you provided) = 12,000 bbls the cost of the fluid is $1,230,000. If you minimise losses while drilling you can use the fluid again for the next well or get credit after treatment from the supplier.
Why would you deliberately lose drilling fluid in a well? You try and retain as much as possible. In addition there are strict rules on how much drilling fluid is adhered to the drill cuttings.
PhilC – sorry this ended up out of sequence….
Don’t worry about the sequence, it happens to me all the time.
No, actually the point was that you questioned that water was imported into drilling sites for the purposes of extraction. Which was my comment further up the page. So I looked and I checked, and this report came up that said quite clearly, that water is indeed imported for unconventional well techniques:
***Use less than 10,000 cubic metres (2.2 million gallons) of fresh water in the whole drilling process.**
**Are sometimes hydraulically fracked to assist in increased flow of fuels to the surface (But are not classified by the government as FRACKING because they use less than 10,000 cubic metres of fluid)**
the comment about fracking is interesting, thats been mentioned before as well.
** 2. Materials, structures, chemicals and an average of 430,000 gallons (67 HGV tanker loads) of water per well bore will be hauled by multiple HGV transporters and tankers to this site where it will be stored for use. Surface spills from tankers and storage tanks en route or on site are documented as common. **
Which proves that I was correct to question it. So the question now is, has the same import of ess than 10,000 cubic metres of fluid and an average of 430,000 gallons (67 HGV tanker loads) of water per well bore. And did that also occur at Horse Hill at any point in its history?
Because that would confirm the point I was making about imported water not being sourced from the bore well itself, and that the reinjected combined with the chemically treated injected water, and the additionally chemically treated produced water, did not all originate from the well bore.
Do you agree with that?
The two numbers are not related. The 10,000m3 would not have been imported as they didn’t do any fracture stimulation.
The 430,000 gallons would have been imported unless they drilled a water well on site. This was used for drilling mud. The majority of this would have been recovered and re-used, returned for credit or disposed of off site under licence at a waste disposal facility. Which of these options was used depends on the type and value of the drilling mud used. It did not enter the formation – unless they lost circulation while drilling – if that happened the “lost” drilling fluid is exactly that – the volume lost is downhole and not recoverable.
Drilling fluid / mud is not produced water, it is not contaminated with radioactivity or anything else from the reservoir. It may contain some additional salt and clay depending on the lithology – both of which are edible.
I didn’t say that the imported water was produced/waste water, Paul. I said that there was additional water being imported, as shown in the examples I provided. Into unconventional fossil fuel extraction sites in order to assist the initial extraction process and make mud, or whatever else it would be used for. And that additional water and sand/mud/chemicals, etc etc, did not originate from the formation itself had it not been drilled. It’s the drilling technology itself which creates the need for additional water, for whatever reason, and operates with the injection of additional chemicals.
The term hydraulic fracture stimulation only applies in the UK, if the process uses 10,000 cubic metres of fluid per well bore. Any more than 10,000 cubic metres of fluid, then it becomes hydraulic fracture stimulation. Though I would surmise that there is an operational leeway to prevent the term from being applied in any situation. So if Horse Hill does not use hydraulic fracture stimulation, then all that means is that less than 10,000 cubic metres have been used per well bore. So the term fracking is somewhat debatable by UK or USA definition.
The conclusion is, therefore, that whatever produced/waste water was not therefore sourced primarily from the formation alone. Also, since the majority of the original preinjected water is sourced from offsite, having then been added to by various toxic chemicals, was not originating from the formation, but added to it. The reinjection produced/waste water, which is also added to by various toxic chemicals, is far from anything that originated only from the formation.
Which would indicate, would it not, that the reinjection process is far from just produced/waste water being taken straight from the formation without any additional water. But has been considerably added to and increased in volume by imported water and chemicals, separated and consequently additionally added to with further toxic chemicals, before it is reinjected.
Which is precisely what I said and that yourself and Steve subsequently disputed as being “untruth”.
Therefore, the term “waste, or produced water” results from the drilling and extraction method itself, and not from the formation alone as it was prior to drilling and extraction. Which was the claim earlier.
I trust that clarifies, that what I have been saying is proven correct and is the truth. And you ask why I use more words? Now you know.
I am clearly wasting my time trying to educate you on this issue PhilC.
>10,000m3 is High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing <10,000m3 is Hydraulic Fracturing and other stimulations.
If no hydraulic fracturing takes place the injected volume of water = zero
Drilling mud is not injected into the formation other than in the scenarios mentioned in my previous post. Drilling mud is not produced water nor is it injected into the producing formation. I don't see how this can be any clearer.
Phil C, to correct you, i was saying you were bringing fracking into your narrative and now you are also bringing waterflooding, the USA and Australia into the conversation.
Your beginning, “I’ve just recieved an email “, and then continuing with everything that does not have anything to do with Horse Hill ( which is what this debate is all about ) which is the re-injection of PRODUCED FORMATION FLUIDS from the Horse Hill wells.also as there is no indication of the person you allude to or their qualifications or status your narrative is completely without foundation.
You say you have visited the Environment Agency website but if you have you obviously don’t understand what you have alledgedly read, for your information when the well is being tested all the fluids they use in drilling and flow testing etc are recovered and tankered away for treatment.
The produced formation fluids will be re -injected directly from the seperator into the original location of the oil/water via a fixed pipeline as instructed by the Environment Agency directive.
As anyone can see i have always tried to focus on the issue in debate which is re-injection of PRODUCED FORMATION FLUIDS at Horse Hill, despite many attempts by you to open up the narrative to many other irrelevant ( to this discussion only ) issues which have nothing to do with Horse Hill or UKOG or myself.
You obviously have serious global issues with the oil and gas industry, but the little play at Horse Hill (which will be lawfully permitted and adhered to) seems to have really upset you, very sorry for that. Don’t worry UKOG will do things in the correct manner, just like i do on this forum.
Listen more to people who don’t have an oil/gas hating agenda then you will have a clearer view of what IS the truth, that would be my advise.
I’m now preparing for the next instalment of your journey with the old farmers wife who smells of old bull. bon voyage mon ami, au revior et bon chance.
That’s OK Steve. You are entirely welcome.
No. I don’t have any issues with the truth or facts, even when they are inconvenient to my own belief systems. I merely point out the discrepancies of accepted fossil fuel monopolies and what that does to the world and all living creatures.
In particular, when there are so many more important fossil fuel issues besetting all species of flora and fauna, and human beings worldwide and in the UK. These asides, are merely a reflected microcosm of the greater world troubles humans have brought themselves into to have to deal with.
But hey! Such is life. I take life as it comes, the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, as was said by William Shakespeare. Or cease to be responsible to my own belief systems by inaction.
I prefer the fine young lady on her journey, if that is OK with you. You never know, I may introduce you.
Thanks for your good wishes.
I return the complement to yourself.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.