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 HUR well test graphs are ordinarily properly labelled with captions and units. If there is a HUR graph that isn't please give a page reference in the CMD presentation.
For the units of those that they have lifted from text books have a read of https://petrowiki.org/Type_curves and look carefully ! My guess is that they figured it would be more confusing to the non-oilies, and the non-reservoir types, than to show them.
Ta as always
SG2,
"(It would be useful for non-petro geo's if Dr T's team had put the axis units on the 'rate/duration' plots, but i think the x-axis is psi (wash mouth out with soap) /hr and the y axis hrs.)
You may be a 'noilby', but that's something which irritates the hell out of me, as well! Some of the graphs presented are sometimes horribly lacking in dual axes, or 'twinned' data-points, so are very hard to interpret without having to switch to other presentations and different graphs, or whatever.
I don't know whether it's deliberate or not.
johnpwh,
"If the pressure is occurring naturally without the need to pump is it safe to let it flow at the maximum unassisted rate without fear of aquafer water appearing?"
Again, (and you're not the first one), you're bringing up the subject of that 'dreaded bogeyman', water ingress from the aquifer which is considered to be the 'pressure-drive' mechanism.
A possibility which the company has mitigated by drilling very high in the structure, hundreds of metres above the OWC (Oil-Water Contact).
Your question is valid, though, but in answer, no, there is no difference whether the current production is 'natural' or using the pumps. The natural flow reported far exceeds expectations, and I personally reckon there will be a lot more data-gathering before the ESP's are switched on for a 'ramp-up'.
Given that the two wells appear to be behaving almost like 'one borehole' (albeit draining 'only' about a 3.5km2 area!), that should be considered 'localised' when you look at the entire Lancaster area, and completely discounting possible extension up the ridge towards Halifax.
Plus (I think it's somewhere in Dr Trice's CMD presentation, though I'm too tired to watch it again right now), there was mention of 'horizontal connectivity' possibly being far greater than 'vertical'. Which is good news, both short and long-term. Because short-term we're dealing with 'shallow' wells, and longterm with more wells drilled, things can be 'balanced' even better.
Over the current limited (though rather large) drainage-area, there is the risk of creating a rather 'localised' pressure-drop zone which in a conventional reservoir might induce aquifer 'water-coning'. But the shut-in results (what little data one can squirrel out) appear to indicate the the Aquifer hasn't even noticed what's happening a few dozen storeys over its head!
(And I'm sorry if I seem to be slightly anthropomorphalising things, but when you're talking geology, the way oilwells work, and so on, it's not too weird. Mother Nature, Gaia Hypothesis, etc. etc.)
To answer your question. Yes, of course it's 'safe to go with max natural flow. Unless for some reason it isn't, but that would be a shame, because it would imply that installing the pumps was wasted expense!
Way back when, after 7z, we were told these wells could happily flow at 20,000 bbl/day with minimal'drawdown', and I believe that.
Just now wishing they'd bought a heftier boat, but maybe the 'market' wouldn't have gone for it. Just got that little bathtub-sized Aoka Mizu to do the job instead. Hey-ho!
john; maybe have a gander at petrowiki 'coning' for a rough guideline. As also a noily, my guess would be that, as has been indicated by the natural flow rates of the 2 current Lanc producers and Dr T's associated CMD comments, the 'connectivity' is very high, which i take to imply/mean the fissure frequency, size and interconnectivity is also very high. Given the high PI and 'fracture network info' info at slides 25 & 31, we can begin to evision that at least some of the fissures are sizable; combining this with the relatively 'light' oil (for this purpose the salient bit is 'light' = lower density but the associated lower viscosity is also important), 'coning' one suspects, is unlikely to be an issue. But that depends on the oil reservoir fissure connectivity to the aquifer, so it isn't at all straightforward, one suspects, as WD has found out............
(It would be useful for non-petro geo's if Dr T's team had put the axis units on the 'rate/duration' plots, but i think the x-axis is psi (wash mouth out with soap) /hr and the y axis hrs. Just a guess, (I'd prefer Pa/s being European), maybe Dr T elucidated in the discussion....?)
Fwiw, i think there will be more shut-in tests coming up/maybe already performed, to determine the 'tail' of the pressure recovery.
Probably all bullocks, hopefully an oily will correct the above....
gla
gla
Can I ask a question of the oilies here.
Dr T mentioned in the CMD presentation that if you were using ESPs you couldn't suck too hard for fear of sucking up aquafer water 'against gravity'. If the pressure is occurring naturally without the need to pump is it safe to let it flow at the maximum unassisted rate without fear of aquafer water appearing?
JayKay,
"And in a bar, obviously ;o)"
How dare you? I 'm not stupid. I was sitting OUTSIDE a café, on a shaded terrace. Thermometer indicating 40°, and few places have A/C.
Typos while using my phone aren't an indication of my mental state! Tiny 'keyboard'.
(Nor are they when using a 'proper' keyboard. On things like this BB I tend to write fast and hit 'send'. And there's no 'edit' function for later.)
BB,
I'm ising my phone so van't put in a quote. But what you day about maybe having to 'throttle back" is true, and important.
I was intrigued as heck to learn that the two wells might be almost acting s 'one borehole'. Remember, they both head in very different directions, and their 'heel sections' are hundreds of metres fron each other. This indicates enormous connectivity.
But equally, we may be above the curve at present, but this is just the start. The ESP's haven't neen turned on yet...
Thnx ExT... It's the "up to" which doesn't mean 20k as you point out, the only written statement for av (up to) 20k is 2020.
I just think DFS sofa's summer sales; "up to " 75pc off :-)
It's difficult with so few press releases, it's not although it's an onerous task, one paragraph, possibly two and everyone is happy, cuts out all the conjecture too. Who's to say they're not going to throttle back a bit, for one reason or another over the coming weeks, we just don't know, unless it comes from the horses mouth.
Wiggle room makes sense...
Hi bartlebobton,
I think from CMD - either presentation or Q and A - there was a comment to the effect that production guidance was set for build-up to 20K net (as opposed to 20K - 15% for downtime / contingencies = 17K).
What effect this had on buildup wasn't - IIRC - stated.
Remember : we're ahead of the curve atm (it seems), but the important word is 'average'.
HUR now has more 'wiggle room' than before...and more scope for surprising to the upside, also.
ATB
Near term from 5th June 2019 update; first 6 months phased @ - "The Company restates existing guidance for facilities availability of three months at 45% and then a further three months at 65%, resulting in average production rates of 9,000 bopd and 13,000 bopd, respectively"
Long term end 2020 .... it states "prod cap up to 40,000"
Has any of this changed then ?
Joesoap,
" Why no increase in the guidance for 2019?...We know that it is good to under promise and over deliver and it's been said HUR are conservative etc., but if they are planning to over delivery against express guidance to the contrary, would you then call that misleading or deceit?"
OK, let's admit that this is debate on opinions. And personally, I don't think that either 'misleading ' nor 'deceit" are appropriate words in the circumstances. 'Guidance' is what it says, just a guideline, maybe erring on the conservative side. At no point has Hurricane said "following startup we will limit production to 9000 bbl/day". Indeed, that figure was mentioned only because it was anticipated that teething problems might force such a limitation. If such problems have not occured (yet), and performance exceeds the initial conservative estimate, that can only be a Good Thing, as you say.
Nevertheless, in the light of this, I certainly don't see the guidance figure being exceeded at the other end of the ramp-up curve, ie 20,000 bbl/day average, continuing like that until 'bebottlenecking'. And also, as someone else mentioned here a while ago, the ramp-up isn't going to be in three distinct incremental 'steps', despite what the graph shows. Instead it'll be some sort of curve, and not necessarily and even one, and definitely not a straight line, although we'll maybe be able to simplify it to a straight line in a few more months' time.
Maybe production is running above that average line at the moment, but that won't necessarily always be the case in the near future. I don't know. But I suspect that by year's end, that 'average' will have worked out to be about correct as foreseen. So why change the 'guidelines'?
ADUK, the question I asked was the unasked question in Genghis' original post, with my suggestion that they may look to achieve the longer term recovery to keep within production guidance.
Indeed, it was an open question from the CMD presentation - Why no increase in the guidance for 2019? - and I have not seen any post to suggest why that will be the case when all can see that they have easily exceeded 9mb/d. So what now for the future?
We know that it is good to under promise and over deliver and it's been said HUR are conservative etc., but if they are planning to over delivery against express guidance to the contrary, would you then call that misleading or deceit?
Gapingfracture (& Genghis),
"GF, yes, that's how I understand it. A positive , not a negative."
Thanks. if that's what it is, I won't bother going to search the CMD for it! Your explanation is sound, and Genghis' comment correct. The more distant the other bank of the pond, the longer it takes for the ripple to be reflected back. A 'positive'.
GF, yes, that's how I understand it. A positive , not a negative.
Hi ADUK, have to watch the CMD pressie again. Its in there.
Its not missing, just initial build up on shut in after flowing these wells at 16500/day is absolute lightning (as expected with crazy high PI) but the last 4-10 psi takes a LOT longer, so long they havent been shutting in long enough to see it. Theory is its because the reservoir boundaries are so far and connectivity so good that when you glow at 16500 you disturb a wide, wide area (good thing) so the last part of build up takes ages before reservoir is back to something like y disturbed condtions.
I havent seen any suggestion that this some scary early/fast depletion.
'missing 4-10 psi'
What's this story? I must have missed something. Can someone please send a reference to this 'missing pressure' thing, please, so I can get up to speed?
Honest request.
F22 I'm curious why you seem to put so much effort into the many abbreviations you put into your messages ( and please it's HUR NOT HE!!) Not being an 'oily' some of which leave me scratching my head before figuring it out yet when it comes to our man at the helm instead of Dr T you plump for the long version and call him Dr Rocks!! Fail to see the logic. However (and meant in a kind way) less abbreviated messages please!!
canetois - you need help :)
takes more than 7 seconds for the water on my bathroom floor to be still after I enter thr bath.
'missing 4-10 psi'
Yes as HE say they have seen no pressure barriers/boundaries. Lancaster being spread over such a large area the DD 'While Flowing' takes some 3 times longer to recover than pressure build-up during 'Build-Ups' (which mathematically is considered negative flow rate equivalent) . If you think about the 'stone concept' - the pressure ripple needs to bounce of outer barriers before whole system can equilibrate. ie takes around 7 seconds for your bath water to be still once you exit it. Shame we all take showers now!
Which is probably why I do NOT post there.
FFS, I can hardly string a sentence together on her some days, never mind on a decent forum.
CP - Pretty sure that this was discussed on the Lemon Fool forum at the time, it may be worth reading through some of the older post by some of the sensible and more knowledgable people that tend to post on that forum (which is probably why I do post there - haha ).
That missing 4-10 psi is, as far as I can see, the only problem encountered, if it is a problem. Would it have recovered if left shut in for longer?
Genghis, (11:57) I recall that was what was said at the CMD, with emphasis being put on recovering the low production periods (which could be less with need for pigging better than expected) to bring up to 20mbd average in 2020.
Why in 2020?
Why not raise the guidance for 2019? It is closer so any long term issues could affect 2020 and not 2019; obviously they are showing confidence that there will be no issues. So do they hve something scheduled that will cause a loss of production and drop the average back to the stated 9mbd for Q3 and stop Q4 increasing?
It was also said, iirc, that they had got all the data that they wanted in the start up phase. But perhaps they are shutting in to see if that missing 4/5psi will recover?