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 and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
CaptainStanley, the trolls I was referring to were those who had been repeatedly claiming for days that there was no solution to the water problem at HH Portland due to the use of slotted liners and that there was no cemented casing. This of course was completely untrue as I pointed out in December by the use of Chemical Annular Packers.
Seems like once this water issue won't be too difficult to sort out, general consensus seems to be that todays update is very positive moving forward, would be nice to see the sp in the 2-3p range once water issue is rectified.
@Steptoes Evidence. Name calling is irrelevant. Evidence for your claim of 10m recoverable from the portland.
You said you have evidence. But you can't find it? Did the dog eat it?
Argus the trolls (me?) were not saying that there weren't water solutions out there they were pointing out that just because there are they might not be quite as easy a wonder solution as you were suggesting?
Balance is needed at this stage until the truth is know at some stage in the future?
You say water isn't a problem. Block energy are down another 6% today and apart from their water 'problems' they have more oil and gas than they thought they'd have.
Other wells have oil and they re-inject it and it helps to keep the oil flowing. Fantastic. But that needs another develpment plan and approval and time and money doesn't it?
So let's hope it's a super cheap quick fix which it might be.
But then again it might not?
Shall we all come back at the end of February/early March as see where we're at?
@Steptoes You are claiming that 10m barrels recoverable from the portland.
I have shown the companies own published CPR has a C2 recoverable of 1.4m from portland using optimistic assumptions. e.g. never any water. page 42 https://www.ukogplc.com/ul/UKOG%202018%20CPR%20060618.pdf
You then claim you have evidence. When asked to show it you refuse. You are behaving like a standard ramper.
Now people can see your making your facts up, and that they are unsupported. They now know to ignore your wild claims.
Luck not ?duck.
Ibug, as usual full of BS. I was right as I had already looked it up some time ago when I posted about the various water ingress solutions in horizontal wells after trolls were pretending there was no such remedies. That put paid to the many deramping trolls posts on that ploy. You have followed my suggestion and now know it was you who was full of deramping BS, as I had only posted some facts that anyone without a deramping agenda could easily have found. No ?duck required on my part.
Post your evidence. If you care about the truth.
Please provide links to such presentations and SS interviews. Or are you making stuff up?
Just like with cloudtag my only agenda is the truth.
"Early expectations were for 3 horizontals to drain the Portland, i.e. to recover maybe 10m barrels. "
Where do you get that from? The CPR page 42 suggests 2C of 1.4million barrels of oil from Portland total.
10million is a lot more than 1.4.
The CPR report has a lot of clauses saying they where using optimistic assumptions.
"Although no water was produced during the well test, it is foreseen that water will break through at some pointand ultimate recovery per well could likely be a function of the amount of produced water. No water production profiles have been determined as part of this report"
PCS - Reservoir engineering is all about balancing production rates against pressure behavior - long term maximization of recoverable volumes requires careful management of pressures - hence the need for water or gas injection in many fields.
HH has beaten many forecasts so far - no water seen for a long time, steady rates and (apparently) little pressure decline. If they up the rates without reinjection they will expect , and plan for, greater pressure declines. No doubt this is an issue addressed in the revised FDP submission to the OGA - who are very hot on maximising long term number
The Portland numbers for review across the last 7 RNS's where rates were published:
18th Feb 2019: between 208 to 218 bopd from point of starting production from Portland
15th Mar 2019: over 220 bopd average over 25 days.
11th Apr 2019: over 220 bopd average over 27 days.
17th May 2019: over 220 bopd average over 36 days.
11th Jun 2019: over 220 bopd average over 25 days.
1st Aug 2019: over 220 bopd average over 25 days.
28th Jan 2020: 293 bopd average at modest drawdown over 13 days.
My conclusion. Current Portland optimisation has delivered a good increase in production rate, from the circa 220 bopd to 293 bopd. Maybe the "modest drawdown" has been lifted a little and they are not so worried about the potential damage to HH2z now that the data shows HH2z Portland being virgin and not necessarily connected to that of HH1 well.
See my post below. Doesn't look like Portland is declining to me. It was under EWT for much of last year
"Why is there so little focus on decline rates on this board"
Several reasons - firstly companies very rarely announce decline rates - they can be found in CPR's if they publish the whole document (which is rare TBH). Secondly you actually need quite a bit of stable production to be able to draw a decent line through the data - an EWT when you are switching horizons, chokes, pump rates etc isn't a great place to start.
But they do say "modest drawdown" in their latest RNS - I guess that at 200-230 bopd they were seeing very little decline - now they're upping the rates it's starting to show - which is what you'd expect
If all goes well for our routine intervention, will we still require a rig?
Should have read 220
11 June 2019 Horse Hill-1 continues to produce Portland oil at a stable rate of over 220 barrels of oil per day ("bopd") via a modest pressure draw down.
17 May 2019 The Portland continues to produce at a stable rate of over 220 barrels of dry oil per day ("bopd") at a modest reservoir pressure draw-down.
11 April 2019 dry oil production from the Portland reservoir at the Horse Hill oil field has continued at a stable rate of over 220 barrels of oil per day ("bopd")
15 March 2019 The continuous Portland dry oil flow (i.e. oil with zero water content), at a stable daily average rate of over 220 barrels per day ("bopd")
18 February 2019 Horse Hill Developments Ltd has re-established Portland oil production from the Horse Hill-1 ("HH-1") well. The resumption of continuous Portland dry oil flow (i.e. oil with zero water content), at a stable daily rate of between 208 to 218 barrels per day ("bopd"),
The maximum amount it has flowed has a decline rate by MINUS 73 from 362 to 435.
Also the maximum sustained rate has a negative decline (aka increased) to 298.
"As I said initial flow rates are well known to be BS that can be gamed. Just change the choke, or let the pressure build up etc.
Why is there so little focus on decline rates on this board."
Absolutely and one of the worst examples was just down the road with Angus at Brockham - high rates for a micro second fueled rampers like DHC for months until the truth came out. IIRC HH1 had rates of up to 1365 bopd from the Kimm test in 2016 - but that has slipped well down the list recently...................... also 323 from the Portland at the time
Here is one of many examples "The water control job increased oil production and decreased water cut successfully without any operational problems."
All I was doing was pointing out is that you are a complete BS merchant who can never back up what he preaches. It was a good guess by you but yet again you could not provide a link to your claim.
Everything you say needs to be taken with a pinch of salt imo.
FYI the Portland was kept at a steady 200 bopd in HH1 during the EWT. imo that was for a reason. I don't expect them to change that during production but they are unlikely to give out production figures in RNS's if they have any sense.
Ibug, as much as you hate facts that destroy your trolling agenda, it is easy to Google for the information which can be found on many websites. Even buffoons can normally manage it. Why not give it a go, or afraid it will destroy another deramping ploy for you.
hex314, The figures we have are the facts we have. Your assumptions are therefore the only BS there could be. Thanks for clearing that up.
@argus1 Total BS. initial flow rates have nothing to do with decline rates. As I said initial flow rates are well known to be BS that can be gamed. Just change the choke, or let the pressure build up etc.
Why is there so little focus on decline rates on this board.
The RNS information clearly shows there has been an increase in initial flow rates of over 20%. Quite a significant increase. The facts bode very well for long term oil production and a much lower depletion rate than some were trying to imply with made up assumptions and wild guesses.
Why so much focus on initial rates, which are well known in the industry as BS that can be gamed.
Why so little focus on decline rates?
Thorpedo, an increase in the initial rate of over 70bopd to 435bopd from 362bopd is an excellent sign. Those making up and trying to exaggerate depletion rates must be taken aback by this RNS information contradicting their incorrect assumptions.