Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
The minor fault running SW-NE ends and is open at its SW point, meaning that any fluids could eventually flow around that end point if the permeability of rock allows. So water injection at HH-2z could maintain pressure for production at HH-1. It might even nudge any oil between HH-1 and HH-2 towards HH-1 to add to its production. Though it would be quicker to drill an infill well to grab oil from that area rather than wait for it to migrate to the HH-1 wellbore.
RNS 23/12/19
Downhole pressure gauges also confirmed that HH-2z penetrated a near virgin pressure section of the Portland oil pool.
The plug was set about 850 feet from TD. (MD (ft) 4806). I'm not going to give an opinion on anything else or it will just pee everyone off.
Pretty clear from the text they are leaving the plug.
'The injection area is located between the 4 ½ inches slotted liner (2990 ft MD) and the Thermatek plug encountered at 3964 ft MD.'
You beed to know where the slotted liner was placed relative to the 2,500ft of horizontal to work out how much was sealed off.
Ibug, can you tell us where that injector section will be? How far along the 1500ft is that section?
I see you have an opinion that it'll not extend beyond the existing Thermatek plug, why would they exclude that? If they drilled 1500ft into a supposed oil play, then would they not want to inject water for formation pressure across the full extent of what they had drilled previously? Are they reducing the potential recovery rates by going with a sub-section of the 1500ft?
Is this now more about offsetting water disposal costs than it is about recoverability?
As UKOG have not really commented on it with any real detail within an RNS, then I have nothing but questions.
Idespair
Agree. Why would you try and drill out a short section at the toe.
"Following the identification of the water ingress source via production logging, a rigid setting Thermatek® plug was set over a zone of open natural fractures clustered at the deepest part or "toe" of the wellbore. Initial testing of HH-2z post-Thermatek® has demonstrated a continuous flow of dry oil to surface, confirming that the plug has eliminated underlying formation water ingress into HH-2z."
The diagram in the EA documents shows where the injector section will be.
CynderLad, they stated that the water shut off plug at the toe of the well was successful. There may be other problematic areas but I can't see any good reason to remove a plug that worked.
Penguins,
Do you think there is scope for undoing the work undertaken on HH2z in their attempt to shut off the ingress from the toe end of the well? i.e. can they undo what they did with the plug? Is there any value in attempting to do that? Do we know how much of the 1500ft was actually plugged off in the first place? How much did they keep exposed for the failed production effort?
Mirasol,
I've looked for what UKOG have said about the interference test and (as usual) it's equivocal - if you have found a unequivocal statement that HH-1 and HH-2z are in separate compartments it would be in conflict with the responses.
The 28/1/20 RNS says '........have determined that both HH-1 and HH-2z can be produced from the Portland at the same time, without any detrimental effect to the reservoir's overall performance.'
Yes, there's a suggestion of separation, but the field's overall performance is a moveable feast and producing from the same contacted oil might reduce each wells EUR, but not the overall field recovery with more wells, and of course it's not happening anyway.
You might think I'm being picky but words in RNS are chosen carefully - it may be after the interference test they were still not sure - maybe more of a baffle? The fact that UKOG have said there are fractures responsible for the second bout of water ingress near the heel of HH-2z - which would be between the injection zone and HH-1 - may be more of an issue though.
"In the text UKOG say the fault is very small between HH-2z and HH-1 so see no issue with injecting in HH-2z for HH-1 pressure support."
that's interesting because originally UKOG said that the end of HH2z was in a separate pressure compartment - but the way the map is now almost the whole of 2z is in the same fault compartment - so maybe there's also a change in rock types that is causing compartmentalisation as well?
"it might take up to 2 years and cost a fortune"...
Well, that would be pretty fast for UKOG compared to past performance.
However, they would struggle to get the cash to do it, and will probably be delisted by then anyway.
" a single new seismic line through (or near) the HH site running south to north could solve the puzzle "
Agree totally but that takes time - you'd have to get planning permission and permit s from the landowners as well - and swampy would have a field day disrupting operations. I'd guess it might take up to 2 years and cost a fortune
Mirasol
The mapping is based on a few old, but usable lines. Instead of testing the map with an expensive well a single new seismic line through (or near) the HH site running south to north could solve the puzzle of faulting where the interpretation ignores the possibility of a further fault terrace on the line to the east of the site in figure 14. There is a risk that the proposed HH-3 location could in fact be in a downthrown fault terrace if the interpreted orientation and throw of the faults is wrong. In the text UKOG say the fault is very small between HH-2z and HH-1 so see no issue with injecting in HH-2z for HH-1 pressure support.
In the previous EA report UKOG reported from the 2016 test a minimum formation pressure in HH-1 of 844psi in the Portland and a bubble point of 705psi.
In this report the 2020 pressure was 600 to 630psi and a bubble point in 2018 of 515psi. They note that solution GOR was 120scf/stb, but producing currently at 180scf/stb
More worrying is the Kimmeridge formation with 2016 formation pressures between 1203 and 1306 psi, in 2020 502 to 619psi, no wonder they are not long term producing it from HH-1 and seeking an updip location in the hope, presumably, elevation will now help what was a regional, and not structurally controlled play.
Interesting that the maps in the section 14 of the latest submission show a fault running SW-NE right through the top-hole location of HH1 and HH2 - looks like HH2z is in a seperate block to Collindean Farm 1 and HH1z.
That has some interesting implications for connected volume for the only current producer.
Essentially they are no longer asking for EA approval for the tanker loading facility and the gas to wire generators. If needed the gas to wire will be the subject of a further application. Consequently the additional land required for these facilities is no longer shown as part of the application area.
Otherwise, as before, permission for a further 4 wells and ewt, but only details of HH-3 which is a slant Portland producer. Discussion of HH-2z injection, and the possibility of one of the other wells being used for injection.
The Geological section has not been significantly updated although the mapping has, with Collendean Farm in the same fault block as HH-1, thus removing the separate structural area associated previously with that well to the north. This may significantly reduce the 30mmbbls plus OIP in the combined structure calculated in 2018, but increase the OIP in the Horse Hill fault block.
The plans for HH-2z show the intended zone for injection.
I've not read through any of the detailed 'environmental' documents.
Cant see on EA webpage what the application is for. Anyone any ideas? GLA
You mean this one that opens on 22 Mar 2021?
https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/psc/rh6-0hn-horse-hill-developments-ltd/
RH6 0HN, Horse Hill Developments Ltd: environmental permit consultation
The aim of this consultation is to ask whether you have any comments relevant to the permit application
We want to make the best decision when permitting. Listening to the views of others helps us to take account of concerns, or local environmental factors, that we may not be otherwise aware of.
We are seeking comments on the revised permit variation application for Horse Hill Developments Ltd. Please use the reference number below when making comments on this application.
?Permit Number: EPR/BB3300XG/V007
?Regulated facility location: Horse Hill Well Site, Land off Horse Hill, Hookwood, Horley, Surrey, RH6 0RB
The purpose of the permit variation is to allow for:
• Construction of up to four (4) new additional boreholes (HH-3/HH-4/HH-5/HH-6) in addition to the current two
(2) boreholes (HH-1/HH-2) already constructed at the Horse Hill Well Site;
• Undertaking well treatments such as an acid wash and solvent treatments;
• Undertaking a 90 day well test for each of the additional wells (HH-3/HH-4/HH-5/HH-6) before later being added to
the portfolio of production wells at the site or being abandoned;
• Incinerating natural gas at a rate not exceeding 10 tonnes per day during production operations, until such a time
that it can be demonstrated that the incineration of natural gas is no longer considered Best Available Technique
through a cost benefit analysis;
The variation will also consolidate the permit with permit determined under the following permit application:
EPR/BB3691NN/V003 to allow for:
• Harnessing at least one (1) of the six (6) boreholes as a reinjection well for the purpose of providing production
support
• Undertaking an injectivity test within HH-2 (HH-2z)
The following applications from the original application for consolidating the permits with the above have now been
withdrawn:
• Permit Number: EPR/SP3339YS/V002 to allow for a regulated facility type: 1.2 A(1) h) (i) - Loading/Storage/
Treatment etc of Crude Oil
• EPR/TP3007PZ/A001 to allow for the operation of specified generators with an aggregated capacity of less than
50MWth for the production of electricity for export.
Heard today there's still environment agency stuff outstanding for horeshill ... maybe that's why it's all turned down there...
Saw a family of dear right next to the site today..
hopefully we will have news of the turkey adventure starting soon..