Member Info for adoubleuk

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!

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')!

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!

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...

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'?

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'.

Heid,

"Obviously you do have to drill in the basement (otherwise there would be no point .... lol), but I would doubt that you would be wanting to do much directional work in it."

You'd have a bloody hard time maintaining a horizontal hole without 'directional drilling'! In any non-vertical' hole, be it at 65° or horizontal, you're immediately fighting against an invention of Sir Isaac Newton, called the Force of Gravity.

(Sorry, he didn't invent the thing, just observed and interpreted it, and then gave it the name by which it's commonly known.)

Heid,

"I meant to also say, I can see the point where it is felt that the well may not be horizontal at that point in time, but I would question if at TD they weren’t almost horizontal (at least in excess of 80-85 degrees).

Hence why by TD in the 12-1/4” section I thought the well would be as near as damn it horizontal."

You are correct. The 12-1/4" is the 'build-up' section, from vertical (near as dammit) to horizontal (near as dammit), if not a bit more. And if the last phrase sounds outlandish, it isn't. In many 'build-up to horizontals' and before running casing, many Directional Drillers like to build to about 92° rather than 90°, because when 'drilling out' the casing shoe and embarking on the strictly horizontal section, the bit will have a tendency to 'drop' a shade during the first 75 ft or so, until the navigational / steering assembly is sufficiently far from the casing to not be influenced by magnetic interference.

From the rumours I heard, the depth at which the casing hung up the first time, the hole angle will have been somewhere in the 45° - 60° 'window', which is always the 'awkward part', especially in terms of efficient hole -cleaning.

Also, that part of the hole is in sedimentary formations, shales and limestones, and nowhere near the 'fractured basement'.

" the simple fact the school boy error "

Whoops! I wrote too fast, before reading other posts, and have found that the above phrase came from Yuyus. Who I know for a fact DOES have decades in the field...

Nevertheless, I personally disagree with use of such a term. If a wiper trip was not performed, that will have been a decision on the part of a Responsible Person, and very likely involving discusssion with others before being actioned. It just happened to be an unwise decision.

And in some circles (particularly amongst 'majors', notably Shell), NOT making 'wiper trips' is common policy. Because 75% of the time you might get away with it. And Shell can afford to have the occasional screw-up as a result.

The actual 'drilling mechanics' at supervisory and management level are largely being overseen by Petrofac / SPD: consultants. And a lot of consultants are ex -'majors' staff, laid off since 2008 or more particularly 2014 when the 'slump' came, and the Majors laid people off to keep their OGA books balanced...

JayKay,

"WD doesn't go as planned, so PIs on here state as fact it's 'lots of school boy errors', 'hubris' and as a result of an ‘irrational HUR mind-set'... Conjecture at best… Distortion at worst…"

Totally agree. There one or two bad things happened during the drilling of WD of which I'm aware, but they were sorted, and had absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the well result, ie whether it was commercial or not.

'Schoolboy error' is a term not to be used in the context. This is not schoolkid's work, and yes (from what I personally heard), maybe one or two wrong decisions were made, but they'll have been CONSCIOUS DECISIONS, probably discussed 'in committee' amongst a few people. Just turned out to be the wrong ones...

One snippet I did hear (but which I've never repeated here) was a blunder, but the very fact I got to hear about it (at third hand) means it was identified and rectified, though maybe just not at the time.

Personally I might be an 'armchair driller' (ie retired), but it's not my fault, and I'd much rather be still out in the field than in the comfy chair. But people who haven't had decades in the field should be wary of using phrases like 'schoolboy errors'.

The oilpatch is awash with colourful expressions and aphorisms, and one of them goes 'If you don't screw up from time to time, it shows you're not working'.

'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.

Bloobird,

I suspect by 'top rampers' they're simply referring to number of posts sent.

I do find it interesting that Nigwit's at #4, and Ricfle #8, given that neither of tham have posted about HUR here (on LSE) for many moons now.

tiggerman,

If one has a beef about something, I think it's usually best to contact the company's IR dept rather than just bleating on a BB. And you've done so with your letter. However before sending such letters it pays to do a minimum of research, and I fear you've shot yourself in the foot by evidently not having done this.

Hur DOES publish a quarterly update on its website. The company DOES issue regular RNS's in a timely fashion in regards to well spud or an 'oil strike' (whatever that may be).

You'll also find a small glossary of technical oilfield terms on the website, and anyway, these days, internet search engines are a marvelous thing.

In my occasional dealings with Hurricane's IR dept, I've usually received a prompt and helpful reply. So I suspect you'll get an email from them pointing out the facts I've stated above.

Though they'll probably be a bit perplexed (as I am) as to why you (like another newcomer here) refer to them as HE, rather than their 'ticker' HUR, like most shareholders do.

Many thanks, Amaja.

DrBB,

" Big players for dingy little clubs!!! "

There's nothing better! 14 years ago I got to see and hear Mick Taylor playing in a village hall on the outskirts of Bergerac, the rest of the cobbled-together band being some ex-members of Wishbone Ash (who own a château in the area) and a local bass player who put the whole gig together. It was one hell of an evening...

DrBB,

On the left, Bill Kreutzmann, on the right Mickey Hart. Both 'original members' of the band, though Mickey took a few years off (in shame) after his father was manager and made off with the loot! Bill's autobiography (entitled 'Deal') is a good read.

Ah Heck!

Here's one to add to Albi1's education.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEU0_Mqor2k

Note presence of Bruce Hornsby on piano. (Bruce Mydland had just keeled over, so Bruce played for a couple of tours.)

Silly season has started. The HUR SP worries me less than the 39°C forcasted here for Tuesday. Not good conditions for trading anything, unless it's a container-load of Made in China fans, which unfortunately I haven't bought, because otherwise I could have made lots of money.

Decision-making will be relegated to whether to have another beer or not.

Recommended holiday reading for all the genuine 'newbies' here (not the Trolls) remains 'Reminiscences of a Stock Operator' by Edwin Lefèvre (first published in 1923 but never out of print).

Alternatively 'Ace High (Mastering low-stakes poker games)' by Nathan Schwiethale, a little thing which changed my life just at the right time.

Happy hols, all, and drive safely...

DC,

" all I’m suggesting is that if HUR cannot control the release of information by Vopac "

Hurricane's got nothing to do with it. Once offloaded from the FPSO the oil belongs to BP.

I think you're all now barking up the wrong tree, even though I can somewhat understand the thing from a Hurricane PI's point of view. Sure, (and I agree), maybe HUR could 'advertise' things a bit more to boost the SP a bit. But we know that's not the company's style. And also, while it's sort of fun to try and work out an offload volume, while we've got a friend who can phone the agent in Rotterdam to find out, a day later, why bother?

One way or another, it's public knowledge, and frankly I couldn't give a monkey's if this offload is 300,000 bbl, 350,000 bbl, or 400,000 bbl. In either case it means the EPS is progressing OK and money is coming in. As expected.

What I'd like to see is news filtering out about a flare being seen on the TOL in about a month's time.

Much as I'd like to emulate Longwait's freezer strategy, I've got lots of things to do in the upcoming weeks which will require me to be out in the sun beside a racetrack, or alternatively in the timeless environment of assorted casino card-rooms. But they add up to roughly the same thing.

The whole story now hinges on the success of Lincoln, in my opinion.