Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. Watch the 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.
dspp,
" I am afraid that trying to figure out what is going on subsurface from surface data is challenging at the best of times"
Yeah, but can you suggest a better way? Yes, I'm sure you can ( ;-) ), but Lancaster is open-hole 'barefoot'. So no question of 'smart completions' there, relaying realtime downhole data from below the production packer, with a possibility of switching zones or whatever.
I'm afraid I still 'challenge' your own contention that anything can be read into the OGA data (showing just five datapoints) than just the simple figures shown, for information, not interpretation.
And anyway, you still haven't come back to argue with me about the fact that the July watercut percentage was lower than June, but with an increased flowrate, and the fact that that particular datapiont is further 'beneath the line' than the September one (which you concentrate on) is above it.
PS xcuse typos, pls. written hurriedly.
SG2,
(Context, rerad your message on phone while having 'digestif' in latenight cafe, finished glass in a oner, scooted off home to reply before more samage gets done..)
"WW, AK, Captainswag (?- really?!), dspp et-al; just a noily suggestion: Could the vds-esp commissioning be realted also to the high PI/natural drawdown rates getting close to, or inducing, cavitation/buble formation at flow discontinuities ('rough bits'); i.e apply a bit of +ve pressure downstream of pump = subsea lines preserved better? "
It's rare that I'll 'jump on' noilbys' suppositions outright, but in this case (for the sake of speed and brevity) I have to. No, you're wrong. In fact completely 180 degrees offtrack.
" Just a thought, haven't done any math on it."
Don't waste your time trying to for now. (No offense intended.) If (especially in a fractured reservoir and a horizontal hole) you have any vague worries about gas / oil ratio increasing (ie approach to 'bubble point') or increased watercut, absolutely the LAST thing to do is to increase 'suck' on the well. Instead quite the opposite. You either choke it down (limiting production rate) or shut the dam thing in until things reach a new equilibrium.
Sorry, but that's just how it is. And why I've got a bit cross-threaded with Dspp for raising questions about the ESP commissioning, and raising doubts.
Must rush, to sign in to online poker game, with election results on the TV in the background.
Thanks for the reply. I'm clearly grabbing a positive (bias) view but I'm hoping that is the correct one.
GE exit polls might help tomorrow.
SG,
I think you are overthinking this. Having said that subsea tie-backs are not my speciality. However I think you will find that the well flow is primarily choked at the subsea tree. The flowline length is therefore not ordinarily (if ever) exposed to full CITHP or full FTHP. One then manages the topsides control valves (I cannot for the life of me remember if these are referred to as chokes, it is a very long time since I have worked on FPSO stuff, there may be a PCV or FCV in there, or not) so as to get the first stage sep entrance pressure one desires. So the well drawdown is primarily controlled at the tree choke, ideally critical flow. Only if reservoir pressure has dramatically decayed would one need to switch on a ESP so as to bring flowline pressure up (and increase drawdown). So far HUR have not released any production pressure data of consequence AFAIK. The ESP rumor may be incorrect, innocuous, or not.
regards, dspp
Wellwell,
Think through what one would need to do with each well for a month, on a day-by-day basis. Make an assumption about flow rate and watercut for each well. Do it in such a way as to match the OGA data for the five months. Build yourself a little excel spreadsheet. Plot the resultant scatter plot. It is possible, but not as obvious as one might think. Your latest is a small subset of those perms & coms, and one of the more unlikely ones as it does not obviously correspond with other statements that HUR have made that also need to be respected. I am afraid that trying to figure out what is going on subsurface from surface data is challenging at the best of times, but even more challenging when there is unknown (or unreleased) data. Hence my very cautious four hypotheses.
regards,
dspp
'bubble', ffs, not buble.
Heaven forbid.
Sorry - gla
WW, AK, Captainswag (?- really?!), dspp et-al; just a noily suggestion: Could the vds-esp commissioning be realted also to the high PI/natural drawdown rates getting close to, or inducing, cavitation/buble formation at flow discontinuities ('rough bits'); i.e apply a bit of +ve pressure downstream of pump = subsea lines preserved better?
Just a thought, haven't done any math on it.
gla
so DSPP you said
"3. A fiendishly cunning management of the respective flow ratios, and total flows, from both wells, by calendar month, so as to needlessly scare the pants off any investor analysing OGA in-arrears data. I find this implausible."
My suggestion is that they were not flowing both wells. =Hypothesis 4.
I said "
whichwaynow - the issue is as you just quoted the company have gone to great lengths to explain the water and how it is not afffecting production. this is based on the figures they supplied which he is using for his scattergraph.
he has come up with some hypotheses based on something that is not an issue. he has scared people into sellling and losing money.
i don't know if there is intent behind it - but it cetainly is open to criticsm.
WWN,
"The perched, or stranded, water we have experienced is consistent with our reservoir model... " (HUR)
"They quote the base case, but don’t actually state that the data supports this. " (WhichWayNow)
So what the hell does THIS mean?
"...this interpretation has been reinforced by the Company's technical work." (HUR)
?????????????????????????????????????????????????
"... If the water is indeed 'perched' ie trapped, would you not expect the trap to eventually drain......and the water cut then drop ?..."
yep, that's exactly what i'd do. (Systems engineer, not reservoir engineer!) I'll also guess that, as WWN hints, forthcoming info may wel go into some detail on (i) 6 & 7z PI, (ii) 7z water-cut, (iii) chem anal regarding water source. Lincoln/Warwick chem/spectro - not yet, probably.
GLA
'There are a lot of people struggling with uncertainty here. IMHO DSPP has offered multiple interpretations of OGA figures- some good, some bad. Those that criticise this are pretty blinkered...'
I would prefer being 'blinkered' to reading DSPP's nonsense, with three of his 11 points beginning with 'If you have a problem with...'
The problem is people like DSPP writing drivel here.
He is welcome to publish it on Lemon Fool.
There are a lot of people struggling with uncertainty here. IMHO DSPP has offered multiple interpretations of OGA figures- some good, some bad. Those that criticise this are pretty blinkered, it’s always best to consider all possibilities. If you’re confident in your assessment then now would be the time to add.
The company guidance that people quote can be read in a number of ways. From the interims in Sep:
We have gone to great lengths to explain why we do not expect to see coned aquifer water during the lifetime of the EPS, under our base case. This is our continuing expectation. The perched, or stranded, water we have experienced is consistent with our reservoir model and since our capital markets day presentation this interpretation has been reinforced by the Company's technical work. Notwithstanding the increase in aggregate perched water production to a sustained rate of approximately 7.5%, water cut remains within expected ranges and is not impacting oil production levels or the cost of production.
They quote the base case, but don’t actually state that the data supports this. I’m confident that they’ll focus on this at the CMD as they know it’s the key question following WD. As for water cut, the way they phrase it as an aggregate and an increase makes it clear to my mind that both wells together average out at 7.5%. That means either both are wet, or the wet well is significantly wetter.
I know plenty will disagree with me. That’s fine. Unlike some, I recognise that nothing is certain here!
GLA
Yes but gradually and possibly negligible
Hi wellwell,
…"the wet well only could easily be on production for long periods...."
Looking at it simplistically, if you're in a project where water cut/water ingress etc are 'unknown unknowns' , if you have one well without issue and one well potentially with an issue, it would make sense to gather more data on the potential 'problem well', would it not ?
Occam's razor ?
BTW, If the water is indeed 'perched' ie trapped, would you not expect the trap to eventually drain......and the water cut then drop ?
ATB
I’ve not had the time to dig back to your original post however you did say if I recall correctly, and I’m paraphrasing, that you consider that option to be unlikely.
In my opinion it’s the most likely. I am of the view the wet well only could easily be on production for long periods. This is what the company guided did it not as part of the data gathering, as opposed to switching wells on and off frequently in some sort of “sequence” or at least that’s how I interpreted it.
dspp
2) i don't have a problem with your data. My only issue is that the water figure you have used and gone on about repeatedly was released by hur already and they said it was better than they expected. They have also gone to great lengths to explain that it is not affecting production. which is backed up with the offloads we have had. According to hur there is no problem so why are you going on about it? at best you are muddying the water (so to speak) mistakenly in my view
4) your hypotheses are just that
5) you are long...have you bought any in the drop?..no don't answer that as we have no way of knowing.
9) disagree. it has been a perfect storm. people sell up at xmas for a variety of reasons. we have a general election which is also causing fear. Market was already spooked with ECO and I3E. i suspect as usual on AIM people sold on "news" especially sold on bad drill result. There were a couple of notifiable shorts opened immediately prior to RNS. negative rumours also spooked some - some have admitted on here. water % being one
so i think a lot of PIs have sold = price drop
10) there are several possibilities why HUR are releasing news in december, including
a) it has been 6 months and that is a very reasonable time frame to give an update. especially as that was the figure of min time needed for data collection.
b) they look to be wanting to improve communication
etc etc
wellwell
4. If you have a problem with the four hypotheses I posted (of which the last is "something I cannot think of") then please post carefully and thoughtfully here, or better still on TLF. When doing so don't worry about minor issues, concentrate on the big stuff. So far no-one has figured out an alternative hypothesis.
**I gave an alternative hypothesis that you discounted even though the wording of the RNS lends weight to the theory that the wells have been shut in for individual testing and if true supports 8% WC from 7z (assuming that's the one on production) with 6 shut in.
= not discounted, it is in fact hypothesis #3. However as I have pointed out it would need to be in a very particular sequence to obtain that result.
= so you don't have any other hypotheses ?
7. That information (rumour) about ESP VSD commissioning is also relevant. One brings ESPs on line to increase drawdown. Why does one seek to increase drawdown ?
**this is a red herring in my opinion and I subscribe to the 'being tested' argument rather than them being needed to increase drawdown
= I hope so too (i.e. either "false rumour" or "finally being tested and commissioned due to POB constraints in previous months"). There are other possibilities, but I definitely am not hoping for them, however I am watching very carefully.
dspp
I've been too bust to post today but scanned posts and felt DSPP's post merited some comment
2. If you have a problem with the data I have used then please contact HUR and the OGA as they are responsible for data quality matters.
**No issue with data, just the conclusion.
4. If you have a problem with the four hypotheses I posted (of which the last is "something I cannot think of") then please post carefully and thoughtfully here, or better still on TLF. When doing so don't worry about minor issues, concentrate on the big stuff. So far no-one has figured out an alternative hypothesis.
**I gave an alternative hypothesis that you discounted even though the wording of the RNS lends weight to the theory that the wells have been shut in for individual testing and if true supports 8% WC from 7z (assuming that's the one on production) with 6 shut in.
7. That information (rumour) about ESP VSD commissioning is also relevant. One brings ESPs on line to increase drawdown. Why does one seek to increase drawdown ?
**this is a red herring in my opinion and I subscribe to the 'being tested' argument rather than them being needed to increase drawdown
WW
DiveCentre,
Re other sources one needs to keep an eye on OGA numbers, partner & contractor press releases, ship movements, and academic papers & presentations. Plus of course absolutely everything that HUR put out which is of course not just RNS's. And the tame house brokers occasionally give an insight by the direction of the padding they wrap around the core data. Plus of course BB rumours which may or may not be true, and may or may not be relevant. It is just like any other intelligence plot - all the data needs to be collected, assessed, and placed in position for verification (or rejection). As one does this one also develops the analysis. To do this well requires an understanding of the possibilities inherent in any given piece of data and its significance in the overall plot. Some people have deep knowledge in one area (kudos to them) but lesser knowledge in other areas (and they don't always recognise their limitations). Ideally it is a team endeavour, so we all balance out, that's called the market. However in this arena one also has to remember that there are people who are either deliberately or mistakenly seeding misinformation and/or muddying the waters. We all do our best.
regards, dspp
Yes free tuition and I take it for my daughter but still cost me around 10k to keep her at uni per year
As I stated previously I think the NHS is a good thing along with the welfare state. Helped my mother a lot and I do believe free simple drugs / things on the NHS can stop the more expensive treatments that many people require that’s my take on it.
If I am a high earner it’s only because I pulled myself up by the bootstraps.
Interesting day today in the UK
Let’s hope HUR start to rise.
That's a bit disingenuous. The correct answer is that your daughter doesn't pay tuition fees at uni in Scotland. Regarding your remark that you pay highe vtax, that is actually not true. Higher income tax maybe, but only if you are a high earner, and for that you get free prescriptions, uni, hospital parking, personal care, shall I go on? Overall you are probably better off here.
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2015/10/22/9592460/college-tuition-free-scotland
Probably cost me about 10k per year to keep my daughter with a roof over head etc whilst she is at uni in Scotland
For those who couldn’t afford a packet aspros at 30p box then I’m sure the government can help them. For the needy again help as it’s been for many years in the UK.
I’m all for the NHS but let’s keep it sane and sensible.
Taxation I pay more in my part of the UK than the rest so I support same taxation throughout the UK and the lower the better as I have a family to feed, shoe and educate through uni.