RE: CR7 Sep 2018 09:57
that's what I have to work on, I may be wrong to trust DW but my own opinion is that I am not.
"And we think we were able to do that - and obviously the result was very good.
All of the things that Paul (Basinski) knows, and we now know as well that are required for this vapour-phase, which is like the “holy grail” for these shale plays - we know that all these elements exist.
It doesn’t mean that it’s definitely going to work though. It means that we’re about 50% Chance of Success (CoS) is our internal estimate.
So the next well, which we had originally designed as a lateral, was designed to test the productive potential of the HRZ.
We know the reservoir is amazing.
But can we frack it efficiently, keep the fractures open, maintain good conductivity through the fractures, which means you get a high flow rate?
The reservoir can flow at high rates, but you need to be able to design an effective fracture simulation.
We think we have enough information on hand to be able to do that, but there’s always uncertainty.
So typically in these plays what you’ll do is you’ll have a geological theory, which Paul spent many years putting together; you test that theory which was Icewine #1, and then you move to the evaluation on the flow potential - which in every other play is done with a vertical well with a multi-stage stimulation.
We thought we might be able to skip that step and go to the next step, which is lateral wells - but what ultimately ended up happening once we spent the last nine months analysing the results from Icewine #1 - we couldn’t get to a point where the uncertainty was low enough for us to be able to take that next step.
So the objective of the well - and this well (Icewine #2V), or the lateral (Icewine #2H as originally proposed) - is to prove the productive potential of the HRZ.
So our job is to maximise our chance of achieving that objective.
And this (Icewine #2V) is the design that does that and that is the main reason why this design was chosen.
Things like cost-reduction… it’s a by-product.
Things like being able to test the HUE… that’s a cherry on the top.
But they’re not the drivers. The real driver is reducing risk, mitigating uncertainty and increasing the chances of achieving the objective which is flow-testing the HRZ.
Q & A 090916
Of course the transcripts may have been doctored and I was not at that particular meeting.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
