Stefan Bernstein explains how the EU/Greenland critical raw materials partnership benefits GreenRoc. Watch the full video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Thanks all for the clarification
Chinski
correct
I read that as the amount doesn't change depending on the rate at which you flow the well? i.e. reducing the flow rate does not decrease the percentage proportion of water produced.
No, he doesn't say that ; he is pointing out that if you flow 2 wells the average changes even tho the % WC in one is unchanged. Therefore the Bach Ho data shown on p10 is an AVERAGE of an unknown no of wells. Could be they are all the same %, more likely, some are dry, mb just 1 out of, say, 10, is producing 50% wc.
I think the drawdown comments sits apart from the question of rate dependency.
Only reason i ask is that in the 13th Dec RNS the statement reads "The Company is confident that the water cut observed is related to perched/stranded water, based on temperature data, lack of rate-dependency, and water production behaviour after shut-in periods." shouldn't the statement read lack of drawdown dependency? Just to make it clear, I am heavily invested here , have faith in the Company but do want to clarify my own understanding of waht's been said and written in the various publications and presentations.
Genghis ty for pinpointing the q % a, one quick question, where Dr T starts the response with a "For instance" does he say the water-cut is rate dependent?
Also relevant there is the slide p30, stating "drawdown is too low to lift aquifer water against gravity"
oops. Here
https://webcasting.brrmedia.co.uk/broadcast/5d249a00da68dd4b10ae7fb0
Oilbb
Yes, tho of course Edison are parroting HUR, in paid-for research. But I have been looking at previous presentations, and at the CPR, to try to understand better how robust this statement is. It may be useful to see RT at c. 1hr 44m in the attached dealing with Qs re water. Sadly some of the questions are inaudible, tho can be deduced. It is apparent that RT is a tad irritated by the question, but the gist is that relatively high water cuts are not unusual in the early stages of individual basement wells.
https://www.edisongroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Hurricane-Energy-Lancaster-EPS-performing-above-expectations.pdf
"As the water cut occurred very shortly after Lancaster came on-stream and does not vary with
changes in drawdown, the evidence supports it being from trapped water and not early
breakthrough of aquifer water. The wells are designed to mitigate against early aquifer water
breakthrough by being positioned at a significant distance from the OWC and by producing at low
drawdowns."