Member Info for Nic7760

HUR production for June (Well 6 only) :
- 11.9 kbod
- Water cut : 10.5%
- GOR : 427 (stable month-on-month)

@ADUK yes, theoretically, you can run a coiled tubing in an open hole. But in this case, they have said the well bore typically dropped a few feet each they encountered a fracture. The hole isn’t straight. So it’s unclear you’d get it all the way to the toe successfully. Did you ever enjoy a stuck coiled tubing in your years on the field ?
And in any case, they haven’t done it. Dr T could have planned a job as soon as he saw water in the 7z but he didn’t. So we’re left guessing now.
And by the way, leaving a barefoot completion in both wells (because it was cheap) is also his mistake.
Now regarding the OWC, everyone and his dog in the industry that looked at HUR acreage ever since IPO (there was a farm-in campaign back in 2014) was sceptical of it.
Admittedly, many were too sceptical overall. In the grand scheme of things, Dr T found a huge oilfield and kicked it started. Great accomplishment. But it’s very possible he got the OWC wrong and stuck with this mistake too long.
And again, his key argument was that he found hydrocarbons below structural closure, which is true. So I’m not saying his position was senseless. It’s just that with 16 months of production record + failed Warwick deep + half failed Warwick West and Lincoln Deep, we have enough data to make a call.

@Pecten11 water is less viscous than oil and therefore flows preferentially.
If you could plug the toe (would require a completely different completion, water would simply bypass it thru the fractures.
For those who believe Dr T never got anything wrong, maybe there is a reason why he resigned...

@ngms27 DrT claimed in several RNSs that mgmt “believed” both wells were producing only from the heel. But that claim was never substantiated nor proven. In order to prove it, the only way is to run a PLT (Production Logging Tool) on wireline. But that’s impossible here because the wells are not cased in the reservoir section (barefoot completion).
So, I just discount that claim.
I don’t see any reason/evidence to believe the entire horizontal sections of both wells are not producing...
By default, they are in my opinion.

@Slift OGA data are correct. Just like your tax return. It is unthinkable for any operator to file wrong well data with the regulator in most jurisdictions, let alone the UK. Period.

Btw, I ackowledge I was wrong saying 7z toe is at 1370m TVDSS. It is 1330m.
Pulled this figure from memory when I 1st posted. Same for well 6.

@Slift check on the OGA's website : https://itportal.ogauthority.co.uk/edufox5live/fox/edu/WONS_WELLBORE_SEARCH_PUBLIC
Type P1368 in the licence number box on the left;
Then, you'll see all the wells. click on Well 6, search for the TVDSS. same with 7z.
Well 6 TVDSS is 3975 ft or 1211 m. Well 7z TVDSS is 4363 ft or 1329 m.
So, 7z goes 120m deeper than 6.
7z toe is close enough to the structural closure (if the OWC is at that level) to pull water, or cone aquifer if you will, from that depth from day 1 with the initial drawdown of about 50 Psi.
Hydrostatic idfferential between oil and water being about 10 Psi per 25 m. Ie. with a drawdown of 50 Psi, you'd lift water from as much as 125m below the toe.
QED
Now guess what : Well 6 was dry up until mid Dec last year when Dr T decided to pull as hard as possible on it (see 2020 CMD slide 15). 15kbd with a PI of 200 is about 75 Psi drawdown. And with 75 Psi dradown, you can pull water from (75/10) x 25 = 187.5 m. Now 1211m (well 6 TVDSS) + 187.5 m = 1398... close to the structural closure.
I've been trying to square this problem from many angles. And the bottom line is : Oil-Water Contact is at structural closure.
Which doesn't mean there aren't trapped hydrocarbons below that level btw

@bransonbull I believe so yes. And it was also Dr T's belief about a year ago.

@Slift Can you point HUR's material where you have seen these depth for wells 6 & 7z heels and toes please ?
My overall point remains, even with your numbers if they are true, that 7z pulls deeper than 6. And that's the most likely explanation for the difference in water cut between 6 & 7z.
Perched Water was a Dr T invention to match facts with his deep OWC belief. If perched water it waas, should have emptied out a long time ago by now.

@Missdosh Trust me

Arriving at Lancaster saturday early morning

@buyinmay I don't have a real concern really. We just have to accept reality, do the right thing and move on.

@ngms27 Again 7z is pulling so much water because it's too deep. sidetrack it shallower and you'll have a brand new dry well. On 6, it's just because Trice pulled too hard on it during the test. That broke a preferential water flow path that only grows from then on.
So, drill your producers high yup, make sure you don't pull too har on them. Drill your injector towaard structural closure. Very carefully control how strongly you push your water in the reservoir. And I think this is manageable.

Now, I agree BHP is lower than the red case scenario BUT they never detailed all the assumptions behind these pressure lines (size & connectivity of the aquifer for instance).
And I don't know when the bubble point will be reached but I'd say maybe in 2-3 years or so...

@ngms27 This DSPP chart exaggerates the pressure decline. Between start-up and April 27 CMD, it was about 90 Psi if you look carefully. Underlying point on reaching bubble point as an issue is valid though. Now, again, one water injector at the other side of the field and you fix this issue, just like on any high perm conventional field...
I've read your SPE paper in the White Tiger field in Vietnam. Very good. They say water injection was a success there btw...

@ngms27 then no need for any injector. But I doubt it. 7z would already be at 99% Water cut by now if the aquifer was very large AND ery well connected to the reservoir. Pressure would have held up much better as well. 1 injector should be enough though as the injectivity will be very high. No need for 2.

@ngms27 Yes correct but there are ways to deal with this issue. you need to inject very carefully at the bottom of the field and then conrol water cut at the producer by minimizing the drawdown to its minimum. With producers shallow enough, injectors deep enough and low drawdowns, you can make it work...

@ngms27 You can inject water to maintain the pressure above the bubble point all along (just like in any conventional field). Aoka Mizu is already set up for it. All we need is to drill an injector well.

@buyinmay everything confirms my point of view so far, including today's Edison report. They just make it sound worst than it is. Let's see what the company says on Sept 11...

@Keepwell In a nutshell, the OWC is at structural closure (1380m TVDSS), therefore the 7z well is taking water straight from this aquifer and should be sidetracked and reset shallower. Disregard many things Trice has said since post start-up (Perched water, wells producing from heel only,etc...). These were unproven claims meant to confirm his deep OWC bias. Well 6 behaves better because it sits higher up. Higher OWC explains everything that's been going wrong with HUR basically, whether at Lancaster, Lincoln, Warwick or Halifax.
BUT even with this new OWC, we still have a very large field (or 4 large fields rather)

@buyinmay I'm here but only talk when I have something to say...