Member Info for HeidHoncho

The less fortunate will be down at ‘Eel just now, and may not be Breaming with confidence, so it would be prudent to get down of your high Perch.

Come on guys, give it a rest, think of those who are experiencing difficulties just now, have you all got no sole.

There are none so blind as those who chose to fail to see.

And in the land of the blind it is the one eyed man who is king.

From yesterday’s RNS ..... “Initial interpretation is that the sand thickness above the OWC is lower than anticipated.”

No, the market is still open for another 5 minutes yet.

So, as I interpret that deal, EMH will have a potential reduction of 51% of the revenue stream, but KDNC will still have a 20% holding in EMH.

I think I like it, but I would welcome the thoughts of those more financially state than I, with regards to the pros and cons of this deal in relation to KDNC.

Many thanks.

If indeed this is the third time of attempting to get the liner to TD then it is unlikely that additional circulating will help clean up the well, as it is possible that the wellbore is deteriorating, and that only gets worse the longer that time passes.

Remember what happened at BB.

IMHO

If the Humber stake was to be purchased then not only would the placing required be large enough to buy out the Humber stake, it would also require to raise the additional funds to pay for the increased percentage of costs, as UJO would then also have to pony up for the increased costs associated with the increase in license holding.

Never say never, but I very much doubt that the 5 million quid being touted about as the size of the placing would be anywhere near enough to purchase the Humber stake, and cover the increase in drilling costs due to the increased license holding, especially given that Rathlin are talking about drilling more wells on the license.

IMHO

Well spotted, and corrected.

Quite possibly the statement is made to intimate a hope that the “fluid type” is the same as was produced from LC, if it were then that would confirm the theory that the Lincoln/Warwick reservoir is homogenous, and as large as was previously anticipated.

Who knows.

No.

Interesting nuance in relation to the Telfer/Havieron issue was the use of “will be processed” as opposed to “could be processed”.

The utilisation of such wording may be indicative of a stronger view that Newcrest have on the potential end result of the current exploration/appraisal drilling on Haverion, especially so given that they clearly have pretty strong views that Havieron ore “will” be processed at Telfer, as opposed to portraying it as “should the results end up being strong enough to prove commerciality” or “if the results continue to show positively we will potentially move into phase 3 of the drilling programme”.

It could be argued that it was just a slip of the lip, or too much is being read into it, but in either case there is no disputing the fact that a company of Newcrest’s size is excited about the results that they have seen to date.

IMHO

adoubleuk, given that we are now both in agreement with the propagation of fill, and why it is logical not to drill near the base of the fractures should infill be a problem, are we both in agreement then with the general philosophy of negative effect that such infill would have on the porosity and permeability within such an infilled section of a fracture, and consequently the potential productivity/commerciality, achievable from a wellbore that was drilled through such an infilled section of a fracture ?

Debate is the best means of furthering understanding, IMHO.

adoubleuk,, and the utilisation of formation top in a fractured basement may be semantics.

I assume that there is a top seal to the formation, otherwise what would keep the oil in the fractured basement from permeating upwards.

If that assumption is correct, then would you rather I utilised the terminology of, the bottom of the formation forming the seal ?

adoubleuk, you answered your own question.

Yes, with gravity things fall from the top down.

Hence, a fracture which has infill cascading into it, will fill from the bottom up.

DiveCentre,
I don’t have the answer, so this is as much as anything a question.

As we all know, formation top depths are not necessarily the same throughout the entire license, especially so geologise which may have been prone to up thrusts.

I don’t know if up thrusting is what caused the fracture matrix, but if it were then all the more reason to assume that there is the possibility that there may be significantly differing formation tops at various surface locations throughout the license.

The reason that I mention this is that we may get fixated about TVDSS depths, when what may be more important are the prognosed formation top depths at WD and WW.

I don’t readily have to hand, but if anyone else does that would be appreciated, what the formation top depths for the reservoir formations were at both WD and WW.

Many thanks.

adoubleuk, I was purposefully over simplifying so as to not dilute the simplified analogy that I was attempting to get across.

But being as you brought up the potential infill issue that allows me to further expand on other points that I had considered.

I think the potential infill argument is a credible one to make as to why the performance from the well was lower than had been hoped for.

Allow me if you will to express my reasoning In the same simplistic manner, hopefully that way our fellow BB users who have no/limited understanding of the technical aspects of the oil industry may be better able to picture the rudiments of that which we discuss.

There are three points I would raise with regards to the potential for infill to have been at the root cause for the sub commercial flow rates experienced, two of which will be relative to my previous postulation that the fractures would be wider nearer the crest and narrower at the base.

1) Simplistic gravity would explain that fractures would likely fill up with infill from the bottom up, therefore any infill issues would most -revel ant the nearer to the base that you drilled, which logically may not have been prevalent nearer the crest.
2) If we accept that there is any credence to the proposal that the fractures are wider at the crest than at the base, then although it would be possible for the infill to bridge the entire width of the fracture near the base the exponential greater width of the fracture nearer the crest would make it infinitely harder for the fracture to be bridged from wall to wall with infill.
3) The final analogy relates to permeability/porosity, so not directly associated with the previous fracture propagation in an up thrust geology argument, but is associated with the infill argument, is as follows.
Allow me the artistic license to utilise an overly simplistic analogy to paint a picture for those not acquainted with the principles of porosity and permeability, so this is not dumbed down so that you yourself can understand, it is for the benefit of others.
Consider if you will, a pint glass of Coke and a straw.
The ability to lift the contents is not overly compromised when suction (or in the well’s case, pressure) is applied.
Consider then, the same pint glass, the same Coke, but this time the glass is also filled with that crushed ice that you get in the likes of Burger King/McDonalds.
Now when you apply the same suction force, how much harder is it to drain the glass at the same pace you were earlier.
Additionally, given that the glass is now half full of ice (infill) how much Coke (oil) is there now contained within the same pint glass, in comparison to the one that only contained Coke.

As you well realise, the former comment is a simplistic layman’s analogy for permeability, and the latter relating to porosity.

All IMHO, just shooting the breeze, and trying to paint a picture.

Wasn’t it Telly Savalis that sang “if a picture paints a thousa

My overly simplistic view of the difference between drilling crestal (as in WW) versus drilling at the base of a structure (as in WD) revolves around axial fracture propagation.

As an example, if you imagine for a moment a slice of melon, which you then put a number of cuts into (from the flesh down towards the skin),and then held each end of the melon slice and bent the ends down, thrusting the mid point up (as might occur in geology were there to be a geological upthrust in the formation).

Looking at the slices in the melon now, are the cuts (fractures) widest at the skin area (base of the formation), or are they exponentially wider at the top of the flesh (the crest) ?

Like I said, probably over simplistic an analogy, but maybe there is a kernel of reality in there somewhere, as to why drilling deep into a fractured formation, especially one that has been subject to geological upthrusting (such as may occur in a ridge for example), may not result in an adequate fracture propagation be seen, but one drilled nearer the crest may provide startlingly different results.

Just IMHO you understand.

Now looks to be complete, and the anchor handlers now heading back to port.

Looks like the weather window held and they got the rig move completed in a very good time.

Well done to the team involved in the rig move.

Now that’s a more credible assumption to the utilisation of “ore” by Scrabster.

Well done miss dosh, 2+ 2 can now return to equalling 4 again.

Until the next time. lmao