The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
re watercut I have taken the data from the OGA that Carcosa pulled out :
https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=269045#p269045
dspp
HH, Good points. Plus these are relatively shallow wells so the cost-benefit of reusing only a thousand metres or so of the upper well is not as great as if it were say a six thousand metre deep well. That is an economic point, and there is the technical point that in a deep well you have plenty of depth to manoeuvre the well bore, but in a shallow well not so much. Overall I think they looked at this, said it is not cleaning up at a rate / in a manner that is going to get anywhere interesting, at this step-out we can't realistically tie it back economically to the AM (cost, flow assurance), we don't have a development plan yet for something closer we could tie it back to, so best we P&A for the reasons you've set out. regards, dspp
albi1,
I don't know what HUR's plans are for any of their acreage beyond what I read in the RNS's and the other investor communications. I do know that this particular WW well is being P&A'd right now, per the most recent RNS.
dspp
donotpanic,
For clarification "plugged and abandoned" means just that, "abandoned". This well is no more, it is a dead parrot. It flowed for a while and is now being filled with cement etc. and, er, abandoned.
regards, dspp
SG2,
The TLF server is back up now so my post that attempted to answer your question may make more sense if you go to TLF post #236470, Postby dspp ยป July 13th, 2019, 4:28 pm link is https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=236470#p236470 . The table 2 and table 3 are what I was trying to describe in words in my earlier post. I cannot envisage HUR or the major shareholders being cooperative with a bid at the current price level, or a FI at the corresponding current value.
regards, dspp
SG2,
The TLF site is down at present - I think there is a server migration going on - so I cannot tell you where to find the crude valuation tables I post up on TLF from time to time.
For the current Q3 2019 condition, i.e. with Lancaster EPS flowing but results not yet in, I give $5/bbl to Lancaster 2P EPS volumes, and $1 to Lancaster 2C volumes. Multiply through and that is 10p/share for Lancaster EPS and 26p/share for Lancaster 2C, i.e. at 36p/share it is the essential floor in the value
For the end year (Q4 2019 or Q1 2020) when Lancaster EPS initial results are available and a FID has been taken on a) the WOSPS gas tie-in, and b) Lincoln crestal tie-back; then - assuming the 50/50 success case (a big IF !) then I uprate Lancaster to $3 and $14.65 respectively, giving 78p/share and 28p/share value for these elements. As always there is the potential for a big difference between price & value, in either direction.
Genghis is correct.
Flaring from LinWar (GWA) will only be permitted during DST's. Unlike LanHal (GLA) where flaring is permitted by the OGA for the DST's and for the EPS. The reason is that deliberate flaring-to-produce is only allowed by the OGA when an export solution (or a reinjection well) would be either technically impossible or economically infeasible. In the GWA case these tests are not met. In the GLA case these tests were met, hence allowing only sufficient flare consent to enable the EPS phase and no more.
So you won't see GWA coming onstream until the gas tie-in comes onstream, excepting maybe the odd month or so of transition etc that can be fitted inside the EPS flare consent - and that is only a maybe. Hence all the various seabed surveys in all sorts of different directions. Including towards Solan.
DarkKnight : Read the links I posted for you.
Johnpwh, how did building 7 which was part of the WTC , a 47 storey building free fall ? Please don't say because of a few small fires....greenfell burnt to a crisp and it didn't fall ...Can you please explain that one to me ?
Read these:
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20VI%20Materials%20&%20Structures.pdf
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/Towers%20Lost%20&%20Beyond.pdf
aduk,
I have been reading through a lot of the G&G papers that are recent/relevant to Rona Ridge courtesy various advfn folks (I've listed them on TLF, at https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=16&p=239643#p239285 and adjacent). Indeed, in one of the earlier papers they discuss the problems they had drilling horizontal which seem to have been largely due to the obvious point that the drill string simply drops as it passes through the various joints & fractures. There is also discussion of the evolution of the mud system. There is also discussion of there preference to go to underbalanced drilling but that there are no rigs & safety cases approved for UKCS for this at present. All told these technical constraints, coupled with the high PIs if properly oriented & properly cleaned up, seem to be what drive the 1km chosen for these two producers, i.e. it is a balanced outcome from many factors.
regards, dspp
sg2,
IMHO RT gave a suitable but necessarily brief explanation of the situation, suggest you take the time to listen, it is worth it.
It took them a week to beat type curves into my head back in the day (all long since gone btw) so I don't think there was time for RT to do dimensionless time justice for that audience.
For them that are niggling, the bottom line is that there genuinely is such a thing as dimensionless time and other similar concepts, and it is normal in the oilpatch to present type curve plots this way.
I too have my niggles with what was said / shown and not said / not shown, but overall that is what they are, niggles.
regards, dspp
Oh, sorry, I should have made it clearer. For some of them the axes are genuinely dimensionless time. You'll understand when you read the link https://petrowiki.org/Type_curves
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.
Amaja - thank you.
Using API = 38 I get 56,000mt = 421,894 bbls, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API_gravity. However we have only been stated the API in round numbers, so the report from Amaja of 455,000 bbls may be correct. Similarly I am not sure of the conventions for pressure and density correction in the tanker trade.
32 days lift to lift means averaging approx 13k bbls/day in round numbers.
The volume data - and the cash - are important, but the pressure data is the key.
F22,
I was wrong - now that I can see the CMD presentation as a pdf it is obvious that the 7z well is the deeper one and that it has the 8% water cut. Provided it is still considered to be perched water and is not rate-dependent then I don't think that changes anything. Provided ....
regards, dspp
F22,
I don't disagree with the generality of your statement regarding possible bookable reserves being currently only the type 'A'. However specific is - I think - that the dry oil is coming from the slightly deeper of the two producers, and the one currently producing the perched water is actually the shallower of the two wells. However you have to wade through a few cross sections to be sure of that, and I am not yet sure I have eliminated the ambiguity in my own mind. Back to the type A, B, C.... X, Y, Z the big question for me is how well they can (re)interpret the seismic to classify the volume given what they have now learned.
- dspp
F22,
The concern is that WD penetrated something similar to Bach Ho zone C (see fig 16). The question is how much of Rona Ridge BRV is zone C, and what are the mechanisms that can cause zone C to arise, and can it be predicted. It may not just be a matter of what is the current depth of the rock, it may also be a matter of what has happened over time. As to prediction given that we now know for sure that this (Rona Ridge) is a heterogenous reservoir, the issue is can we figure out exactly what is worth drilling, before expensively drilling it.
dspp
It is the first up on google because the SLB paper is a very good explanation of what a flash test is. However - as I alluded to yesterday - the more interesting question is why, and there were two rumoured facts then: flast test, and CT. There are now two other fairly obvious facts: no flare, and anchor handlers. Putting that lot together. Firstly one generally runs sample bombs on wire line (either slickline or braided line) to approximately the bottom of the cased hole. That is low enough to be below the bubble point, safer than going open hole, and less costly than running coil. The returned samples from the downhole bombs complement the sample bombs taken at test sep conditions from the DST spread (and of course the test sep flowmeters). But that approach assumes a well is flowing to surface (or at least the interface is as far as the cased section). If the well is not flowing then you need to run the bombs on coil to get down into & along the horizontal section. You don't bother running bombs (expensive & risky) if you are not getting any evidence of hydrocarbon at all. The implication is that the WD is not flowing, and they have run out of time/knowledge to get it flowing, but they have seen hydrocarbon in the horizontal section through the reservoir, and are after getting PVT samples for further analysis. Whether it is not flowing because of a Halifax-style skin issue, or because of a Bach Ho 'deep' style reservoir issue, or a combination of these & other issues, we don't have enough information to hazard a guess. Or there is other info that we don't yet know and so this is a completely erroneous hypothesis .........
As a general point they will want to gather data about the reservoir fluid properties in these three LinWar wells so as to a) understand field heterogeneity; b) assess commonality with LanHal fluids; c) think further about charge & migration and so other exploration targets; d) get cracking with design stuff required for the tieback decision, and the LinWar FID. They don't want to be in the position of waiting for a EPS to discover whether the GOR is a tad high or a tad low as that has quite significant implications. So they will be wanting to narrow the error bar down early& aggressively imho.
What is not quite so obvious is what scuttlebut you (aduk) have heard. Without knowing that, or what stage the WD well is really at, it is hard to comment further. So far you have revealed two snippets: 1) flash test, 2) CT. There are implications in both those pieces of information .... I have my personal hypotheses, but I don't have enough data to choose between the alternatives.
That is assuming, which I am not, that whatever you have heard is correct.
https://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors89/jan89/1_pvt.pdf
Res Eng and Prod Eng and Fac Eng are more interested in this than the average driller :)