The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen 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.
Foresight22,
'Reservoir Engineer' quite right!
Anyway, thanks for your response, it all makes sense now. I knew there would be a good reason. ATB.
Why would a geophysicist be able to answer this question?
..if you asked a reservoir engineer he/she would say it’s irrelevant now after three months production - wells being produced by pressure drawdown constraints - which limited DD on aquifer - hence no premature water production. A better question would be how far out now have we ‘seen’ the barrier between Lancaster and Halifax yet? If not what is the chance of these two FB reservoirs being actually the same field?
HE will only know which fractures are flowing by running a PLT log which is impossible now the wells are subsea completed. Ie no rig over producers. This would not help as the fracture meshwork is to complex to identify. Once HE start to understand the extent of Lancaster’s oil connected to these two producers - they can then decide whether to increase the DD => increasing the flow.
A question for our resident Geophysicists: If the two Lancaster wells are acting as 'one' due to their close proximity and almost instantaneous communication , could this have a bearing on Hur's current ramp up of oil extraction so as not to precipitate early water breakthrough?
If they are effectively acting as 'one' does that not imply that Hur are actually flowing oil double the rate what they intended, especially if the flowing fractures are located close to the start of the longitudinal sections.
I'm sure Dr T has considered this pretty carefully which is why he has not altered the planned extraction programme, but it is something which I cannot remember being discussed on this board (but happy to be corrected).
If the horizontal wells are open hole, is it possible to know which of the large fractures along the run are flowing?
ATBLTH's
SG2,
' sepia copies of H&E - handled quite a bit'
Might be worth something on ebay these days! Unfortunately (you may be glad to know), I don't have any to put up for auction.
johnpwh, AK: 'sepia copies of H&E - handled quite a bit'
too much information, dudes.
gla
Well back from the pub where I had 3 pints of Neepsend 'Beryl' . Yes seriously, Beryl. 4.3%. Very nice too.
Caught up with posts since I've been out, and saw ADs on 'Health and Efficiency'. What warm memories that invoked. I was about 10, and our neighbour 'one eyed' Cyril Kirkby (who had a drive full of Jaguar Mk V11, V111 and 1X s) gave me a stack of 'Motor' and 'Autocar' magazines as i was car mad. Well as you can guess, in the middle of the stack was a copy of H&E. I remember it as sepia rather than black and white, though it may just have been handled quite a bit. Made quite an impression on a young chap, as you can probably imagine.
Ax2uk - ha ha, H&E, think that got replaced by the Web...
So that's your real issue with the alternative, shorter, abb...
ESPs were most initially run to help risk manage - completion/installation process which could have actually damaged natural PI - actually PIs have improved significantly. Now that the natural PI are better than DST, good to still have them (sunk cost) for future risk management. ESP life usually linked to time of use and 'abrasiveness' of produced fluids, fines or solids. So under natural flow - they could last the full life of these wells. After 3 months production - the interference concerns between 6 & 7Z seems to be not an issue in reality if the current lifting volumes are correct. Rock on...
Dark Energy,
" HE is an abbreviation of Hurricane Energy"
Yes, but it's also an abbreviation of 'Health & Efficiency' (if that publication exists any more).
Referring to Hurricane as HUR leads to no ambiguity, because it's doubtful that anyone will think it's the family name of a chariot-racer that's being referred to.
As for 'Dr Rocks', that's just plain childish.
If FS22 refrained from such inanities, people might take him more seriously. And he does sometimes have some interesting and knowledgable stuff to say.
Treaty - HE is an abbreviation of Hurricane Energy
Genghis,
You are correct. To achieve 20,000 bbl/day average, the pumps may not have to be brought into play. But please note my use of the conditional, there.
However, whether the ESP's are used or not, and in respect to johnpwh's question, higher flow equates to higher 'effective' drawdown.
This is of course highly simplified... The 'two wells acting as one' thing is fascinating. The guys (and gals) 'playing with them' must be having great fun!
Sorry, fat fingers,.
16500bpd each, not 13500.
ADUK
"Current flow figures (which appear to be around 12,500 bbl/day under natural flow are fine right now, but the plan IS to increase from that. (Contrary to what you wrote, quoted above.) Which will probably require the pumps, and OF COURSE will increase the DD (or 'amount of suck')!"
If you refer back to CMD, it is clearly stated that EACH well flowed at 13500 bpd under natural flow.
So as I see it, there should be no need for pumps, and no increase in DD.
Happy to be corrected, but it seems pretty clear.
exercise, even. doh.
gla
Hi AK, FS22, anyone not lolling in the pool: Are the ESP's required at-all for the prospective drawdowns? With PI's of 205 bbl/psi for 6 and 190 for 7z, isn't the reservoir pressure delta-v-z (sorry, difference vs height) sufficient to give adequate (20kbbl/d) flow at DD's exceeding the bubble-point (1600 psi)? I get that they (the ESP's) might need to be 'excercised' to prevent them siezing-up (lol, that'll bu99er them) but necessary to use in-anger? I suppose the fluid drag through the hardware/pipery en-route to the AM will be significant, but w-a-g that there's still enough reservoir grunt to do the job comfortably. Is that over-simplistic? (text " T**t" for yes, anything else for no....)
gla
Well certainly HE doesn't mean Hgher Education in your case.
Fs22 - please keep using HE
If it weeds out the easily confused so much the better
It was ax2uk who started this. Since he can't type three letters without getting one wrong would have thought he'd welcome a two letter abbreviation
FS22,
" ESPs unless variable drive will deliver higher rates => greater DD which is not the plan."
The ESP's installed on Lancaster ARE variable speed.
You are correct that once brought online the ESP's will increase drawdown: it's axiomatic. But so long as the drawdown remains within certain limits, that's OK.
Current flow figures (which appear to be around 12,500 bbl/day under natural flow are fine right now, but the plan IS to increase from that. (Contrary to what you wrote, quoted above.) Which will probably require the pumps, and OF COURSE will increase the DD (or 'amount of suck')!
Yes, Foresight - Please use HUR and Dr T. You confuse them, you lose them......
Foresight22 . Please use HUR instead of HE and Dr Trice instead of Dr Rocks.
People may then be able to tell what you are on about then.
...simply better to produce wells on natural flow with simple DD constraints - current rates based on PIs not onerous on reservoir. ESPs unless variable drive will deliver higher rates => greater DD which is not the plan. Wells will still be cleaning up too - fractures may still be producing fines etal — so on natural flow can see some of these effects with downhole gauges.
Lot of guesstimates made by HE & CPR consultants on aquifer volume - but actually aquifer strength is more key to actual water breakthrough. On aquifer volume - highly unknown as WD just showed with extreme DD applied needed which still flowed formation water not aquifer(?) - lab work still ongoing on DST samples. WD had minimal losses while drilling - though Dr Rocks reports mud brine recovered - need to wait for final analysis. Aquifer quality most always poorer than reservoir quality - typically SNS aquifer around half reservoir quality. So aquifer acreage may be high but aquifer-water in place may be much less than HE have assumed in their simulations. Key is effective aquifer permeability - 1% ‘Porosity’ fractures could be 1000 times less permeable than 4% ‘Porosity’ fractures. With >300 million bible ‘seen’ to be ‘attached’ to current wells - only small minority would be aquifer.
sg2,
IMHO RT gave a suitable but necessarily brief explanation of the situation, suggest you take the time to listen, it is worth it.
It took them a week to beat type curves into my head back in the day (all long since gone btw) so I don't think there was time for RT to do dimensionless time justice for that audience.
For them that are niggling, the bottom line is that there genuinely is such a thing as dimensionless time and other similar concepts, and it is normal in the oilpatch to present type curve plots this way.
I too have my niggles with what was said / shown and not said / not shown, but overall that is what they are, niggles.
regards, dspp
dspp; yes, the pressure-time-time plots can be a bit difficult for 'not-done maths for 30 years' normal people to keep a grip of. Perhaps an explanation might have been in-order (I haven't had a chance to play the cmd recording yet, only look at the ppt....)
rgds
gla
AK, Johnpwh; sorry i got the suggested axes labels the wong way wound - psi/hr y -axis, hrs-x-axis.
They also didn't define which was-which of the pair of slopes in the oil pressure-density/water pressure density plots (used to determine OWC), in the plots 'freshwater' density is leftmost and the (low salt concentration(?)) seawater rightmost.
hope that helps in a tiny way, with the clarity of the mud.......(lol)
gla
Oh, sorry, I should have made it clearer. For some of them the axes are genuinely dimensionless time. You'll understand when you read the link https://petrowiki.org/Type_curves