Dear Surrey County Council,
1. Angus Energy communicated to investors in late 2016 that they would be drilling a side track. The head of planning at SCC clarified on 13 Jan that the operator had a work-over rig at the site which “has not been used to extend the existing well either vertically or horizontally" and that If the Operator wishes to extend the existing well bores or drill a new well on the site then planning permission would be required. The Council also confirmed that no applications were made but some "limited pre application discussions" had taken place".
a. Given the confusion over drilling of a side track, I would like to request any and all documents and meeting minutes that formed part of the pre application discussions, and in particular where they refer to side track BR-X4Z.
2. Was the council notified about the details of the workover that took place in 2nd half of Dec 2016 and Jan 2017 prior to works commencing?
a. Was the size of the rig specified?
b. Was it specified that works would require c. 1 mile worth of dill pipes and a drill bit brought on site? What was the purpose of this equipment?
c. Was it specified that radioactive materials would be brought on site?
3. The council explained that night time working during the period from 13 to 25 Jan was due to the maintenance works taking place being 'live', and that at the advice of the HSE and on grounds of health and safety the CPA sanctioned 24 hour working on a temporary basis. It was further clarified that the ‘live’ well resulted from “hydrocarbons bypassing an isolation plug” and that “as such they [Angus Energy] needed to work quickly to 'kill' that section of the well by sealing it and cementing it ASAP: abandoning the well safely.”
a. Could you please clarify whether your understanding is that the finding of the live well by Angus Energy was intentional or unexpected.
b. Could you please clarify what procedures were carried out and how deep into the well. Please provide relevant documentation.
c. Were hydrocarbons bypassing isolation plug gas or oil?
d. Were emergency services advised of the hydrocarbons bypassing isolation plug? Did they attend ?
e. Could you please confirm which well was worked on and what is the status of this well now. Is this a production well ready to be used to produce oil? Mr Lenigas, investor in the site, said on 6 February 2017 in an interview with Shares Spotlight that the Brockham-1 well was "turned back into a production well" during recent works.
f. In a note received from the council on January 19, one of the case officers confirmed that Angus energy failed to inform the CPA that “night time working would have been part of the maintenance and logging activities.” Had the council been informed about this as well as all of the above, would a separate planning permission have been required for these works?
4. Smoke at well site
a. There were two plumes of vapour noticed around 3.15-3.30 on Tuesday 17th January. Can you please clarify what it was?
b. A large amount of smoke observed coming out of the well site on 30 January. Can you clarify what it was?
5. Please clarify what are the steps Angus needs to take to be able to start production from the Brockham site again.
a. Could you please clarify how many wells and side tracks have been already drilled. Do they need to drill any new wells or side tracks?
b. What permissions will be required in addition to what is already in place? The site is permitted for production – can you clarify that Angus therefore doesn’t need any consents for exploration, appraisal or development and that they can go straight into production?
c. An email received from the Surrey CPA on 19 Jan clarified that "unconventional production" would require a fresh planning permission from the County Planning Authority on the understanding that a new rig would need to be brought onto site to facilitate works.”
d. In light of this, can you please clarify why planning permission was not required to bring on site a work-over rig?
e. What is the Council's understanding of Angus Energy’s planned next steps at Brockham?
6. Could you please clarify whether Surrey County Council receives/or will receive any economic benefit from Brockham well drilling or production or other activities.
Dear Ada Zaffina
YOUR REQUEST REF NO 16094 UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000
Thank you for your request for information received on the 16.02.2017. Your request reference is as above.
We will respond to your request as soon as possible and in any event within 20 working days from the date of receipt of your request. If you wish to contact me to discuss the progress of your request, please use the contact details given below and quote the reference number given above.
Maggie Mc Cormack
Corporate Information Governance Team
Legal and Democratic & Cultural Services
Dear Ada Zaffina,
We have considered your request which concerns work at Brockham. I have
attached the relevant information.
We supply this information based on your original request. Please do not
hesitate to contact me at the above address if you have any queries
regarding the information attached. Remember to quote the reference number
above in any future communications.
If you are unhappy with the handling of your request for information and
wish to make a complaint or request a review of our decision, in the first
instance you should contact the County Council, quoting your request
number given above, at:
Freedom of Information Officer
Surrey County Council
Legal Democratic & Cultural Services
Kingston Upon Thames
[Surrey County Council request email]
If you are not satisfied by the County Council's response to your
complaint, you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner for
a decision. The Information Commissioner will normally expect you to have
exhausted our complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner can be
Information Commissioner's Office
Tel: 020 8541 7147
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.Donate Now