Member Info for abzzba

Continued.

So we have extracted 4813 cubic meters of fluids (oil/water mix) from H1 reservoir, imagine if you will the pressure escaping from these gas pockets filling this 4813 cubic meter void in the reservoir, at this point I should explain that this void will be filled with oil from the surrounding reservoir but that oil will be at a lesser pressure, overall effect is the fluids extracted decrease reservoir pressure, the result is an increasingly stable reservoir and wellbore which can be controlled by our current wellhead, once reservoir pressures stabilize we can open the choke and increase production, though this takes us back to sand production and the introduction of a sand screen.

H1 is in its infancy, less than 4 months since production started, with every day we extract oil we give the gas space (lower pressure reservoir) to expand within the reservoir which means less pressure spikes (fluctuations) in the wellbore, this is a far more likely scenario than the slugging that Isa Investor would like us to believe.

The only thing Isa Investor has said that I agree with is that the more we drill and produce in the Heron field the more knowledge of the geology and well conditions we will get, this results in MATAD being better prepared in future wells.

The pressure and sand issues are not at all uncommon in the oilfield, rest assured whatever H1 throws at us there is a known fix.

I think we can now be assured Isa Investor is certainly no oilfield expert or engineer and he is certainly not the sand specialist he claimed to be in his first post on Friday @ 16.46, indeed now that he has been proven to have no idea what he is speaking about he no longer wants to talk about the sand issue, strange a “sand specialist” would say this but hey ho.

Onto his well slugging claims, while we cannot 100% dismiss his suggestion that H1 suffers from slugging issues, Isa goes into “great detail” on the issues slugging may present but he never gives the oil industry standard prevention measures that are employed to rectify the issue, typical industry responses to slugging would be control pressure and flow by means of the wellhead choke (which we are doing) or injection of gas into the well to control flow rate, there are other options such as installing surface separators to manage gas and liquid phases more effectively, or lastly we could install tools like downhole chokes or pumps to regulate flow, strange an engineer of his “claimed” experience would not mention these industry standard preventative measures.

As we know from the 14th November RNS H1 is experiencing pressure spikes, on 12th December @12.51 I gave my own thoughts which I believe to be the far more likely outcome to these pressure issues, reposted below is my 12th December post.

…………………………………..

12th December @12.51

Its very possible we will be told that the gas pressure spikes which have caused a problem on H1 have or are diminishing, as oil flows out of the reservoir the gas released from these gas pockets has a larger volume to fill, this results in less spikes in the wellbore and more constant and controllable pressures at the wellhead, result being the current wellhead can better control the well, if this happens the choke can be opened to allow higher production than the circa 250 bbl/d we have been told about, with every day that passes the above scenario becomes more likely to happen, we may be producing way more than some think and we may not need to change the wellhead at all, case of wait for news.

…………………………………….

To enhance on my December 12th post.

The 16th January RNS states we have 15,750 barrels of oil in storage, we also know H1 is currently producing at “over” 200 bbl/d, since the 16th Jan RNS H1 has produced another circa 6,000 barrels so we should have around 22,000 barrels of H1 oil in storage, the well produces water along with the oil, exactly how much water we do not know but I will take a guess at two thirds oil one third water, so we have extracted around 29,000 barrels of fluids (oil/water mix).

Bare with me, this is the point a genuine engineer gets boring.

1 barrel of oil has a volume of 5.615 cubic feet, hence 29,000 barrels has a volume of 29,000 x 5.615 = 162,835 cubic feet, this equates to 4813 cubic meters.

So we have extracted 4813 cubic meters of fluid

Isa, you really are a bit of a dip stick who prefers not to be challenged and especially likes not to be made a fool of, unfortunate for you i feel its quite easy to pick big holes in your long winded waffles which are based on spite rather than any knowledge and a lot of google between the lines, i would doubt you have ever been on a rig site, especially onshore and i doubt you have ever ventured close to a rig or platform as you quite obviously have not a clue what you are talking about.

All bluster and very little substance and zero fact to back up your waffle.

If you would like to continue tomorrow i will have time, until then feel free to shoot the breeze with someone more gullible,

Isa, on that we do agree, "sandstone reservoirs do not always produce sand", what you overlook though is the type of sand, strange an engineer of your claimed experience would not have checked and found that the Lower Tsagaantsav Formation has a sand stone reservoir and is known for its fine to medium-grained sand, very remiss for an engineer of your standing !!

Isa, loved your hugely technical desription of sand "Yes, 'sand' comes in all sorts of varieties, from the fine, soft, powdery stuff, to the nasty, hard erody stuff.

Shame you never checked which formation H1 was drilled into and the formation type, very remiss for an experienced oilfield engineer.

For info i think most people would realise that if you drill into a sandstone reservoir then you should expect sand in the wellbore, as i pointed out its the type of sand that is important,

When it comes to posting you seem to think quantity beats quality, not in my book, fact will always overcome your fiction.

2857mal, agreed, isa investor has more in common with Walter Mitty than an oilfield engineer.

Sum total of the H1 pressure and sand issues as stated in official RNS are detailed below.

1: RNS 14th November states = “The oil has more associated gas than expected which improves the flow potential but is also causing pressure fluctuations at surface and so production is currently choked back in the 200 to 300 bpd range.

2: RNS 16th January = “Stable production of over 200 barrels of oil per day is being maintained. At higher rates, reservoir sands are produced along with the oil and the installation of sand screens offers a cheap solution to this and will be programmed for the spring if the well continues to perform in this way.”.

From the above amazingly brief detail our new pseudo oilfield expert has reached his far fetched OTT conclusions that H1 is terminal. (you really have to laugh).

He has no idea of how much sand the well is producing and he has no idea of the sand grain size or if it’s a soft or abrasive sand, seems he took his crystal ball on holiday with him.

For info H1 reservoir is drilled into the Lower Tsagaantsav Formation which is predominantly sandstone formation known for its soft sand, if this is fact then the sand is much less of a problem erosion wise.

Fact, RNS details released by any oiler are brief and basic and seldom contain any meaningful data that could be used by even an oilfield expert to reach an expert conclusion, at best you can take an educated guess at the most likely scenarios, the NEGS on the other hand come up with the most outrageous worst case scenarios and post these as fact.

I can assure you no genuine engineer can or would reach this conclusion from the few and very brief details that have been made available to us through the various RNSs.

In my experience the simplest explanation is often closest to the facts, and when MB tells me in 16th January RNS "We are very pleased to see Heron-1 maintaining production and showing potential to increase its flow rate with some low cost modifications.", i am more than happy to accept this.

WOS, you ommited the fact that conveniently he is also a sand specialist, also noted he turned up same time as xxproinvestorxx who posted here several times a few months ago and was happy to admit he used AI for research on oilfield, as i said to him at the time, as AI a rubbish or not inteligible question (due to lack of oilfield know how) you will get rubbish answer back.

I honestly wish we had a real life oilfield expert on the board, a genuine drilling or completions engineer though fact is from the brief detail stated in the RNSs its nigh impossible to give anything but an educated guess on our operations/wells.

Takesiteasy, the more lies you guys spout the more times i have to post to correct you, this has been a busy day, doubt i have ever posted as much before, just as well i was was not busy today.

PS, guess thats 40 !!

Xxpro, due to your zero oilfield knowledge you would be unaware that every day is a learning curve in the life of a new oilwell, H1 is in its infancy, it has an expected life of 20 years plus, possibly 35 years, not uncommon for an oilwell.

I comment on what an RNS tells us, my comments always reflect the most likely scenario, not the outrageous unlikely scenarios the NEGS post, yourself and AI included.

Q: You still using AI or have you jumped ship to DeepSeek ?.

Gosh a bad day but still up (over 7%) on Mondays price, they can knock us down but they cant keep us down.

Plus, look at his posts, punctuation, grammar, cut and paste from AI, chatGPT or some other rubbish. Rubbish question in rubbish answer out.

For info his claims of slugging in the tubing due to gas pressures is rubbish, on checking this (as he suggested) it seems SLUGGING occurs most frequently, on mature oil fields, one of the few things we know for certain is Heron and H1 are not mature, H1 has been producing just over 3 months

Basically from the limited info detailed in the various RNSs it is simply not possible to come up with any meaningful conclusions on H1, for now if MB tells me in 16th January RNS "We are very pleased to see Heron-1 maintaining production and showing potential to increase its flow rate with some low cost modifications.", i am more than happy to accept this, its MB that has all the details and info at hand, not some pseudo oil field expert like isa man that want to trash MATAD because TenBag is causing grief on THX board, also he says WOS has posted on THX, if he has its not lately, i looked.

Isa man references erosion and that can be an issue with sand, but as yet we do not know the sand grain size or if its abrasive or soft sand so no way can he launch into a doom scenario when he is missing such crucial info, no real engineer would do that.

For info if it were abrasive sand the oilfield have a fix for that as well, its callec inconel inlays on the wellhead choke/ equipment, tungsten chokes and equipment also available, its so bloody hard the sand bounces of it, yes sand cleanup may need done but again the oilfield have equipment to limit this (if its needed).

Link to the slugging article below, see 2nd paragraph.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959152412000637

You appear to have crammed a lot into your “career” between the age of 22 (leaving university) and middle age (55 ish ?).

Working in completion design, production system engineering, optimisation... and latterly renewables.

Plus the: managing a green hydrogen project. Not to mention, Production fluid modelling, specifically multiphase/sand is a speciality,

Plus. I have been in the Engineering and Technical and Project Management teams for dozens of field developments. (I assume you mean oilfield developments ?).

My first thoughts on reading this was, WONDERMAN, so much experience all gained in “around” 35 years, quite amazing, astounding, absolutely Miraculous.

I would be interested to know how you managed this as the numerous multi national oil companies I have worked with offered a very narrow window to jump from one engineering discipline to another and if it were available it would only be available after many years experience was gained, you appear to have side stepped this, that’s just an observation based on your stated career history.

The other claim that grabs my attention was the fact you have worked on “dozens of field developments”, I also worked on quite a few field developments but in general the development of an offshore oil field takes years, from inception to completion at least 7 years but often more, and you have worked on dozens of them by middle age, well done you (how old did you say you were ?).

One more thing that grabbed my attention was your claim that sand is a speciality, I guess you know that Weatherford are the oil industry experts when it comes to sand control, did you work for Weatherford or a similar sand control company ?, I ask as I was unaware Oil companies actually had sand experts within their own engineering departments, where did you glean your sand control experience ?, I am sure you are aware the oil industry depends on contracting out of specialist services such as sand control to Weatheford, completions to Baker Hughes, Drilling to Schlumberger etc etc.

PS, I am in no way suggesting you are a bullshxter, I am telling you you’re a bullshxter.

Think maybe your here only because TenBag etc are on your THX board.

Xxpro, my just deserts will come post refinery, 40p of them for every share,

ISA-Investor, we welcome another THX investor with open arms, even if he does waffle on a bit, interested to know with which company you were drilling and completions engineer ?.

Oh no not xxpro back, we are in for a treat,

Takiteasy, your lies and posting style remind me of Adw so i guess we are even

I would doubt Gusto learns much,

Takitqueasy so you dont actually have any idea of our finances today, in other words you "estimate" we dont have the cash, you dont know, feel free to say you dont know, dont be shy in admitting your wrong, you often are.

Mike Buck, CEO of Petro Matad, said:

"We are very pleased to see Heron-1 maintaining production and showing potential to increase its flow rate with some low cost modifications.