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.
@Simonlee I have a substantial holding in HUR’s stock. Have had it for 2+ years, never sold a single share. It has gone down almost 90% and I’m getting sick of it. This was the clarifying RNS that should have lifted the fog for all of us. Yet I couldn’t find a good explanation on this board. Which is why I chimed in.
With this, I’ll leave you there. I think we now have all this info to understand this reservoir and guess what needs to be done to get back to 20kbd next spring and more later with additional wells.
Best to all and kudos Missdosh for all the ship tracking.
@Pecten11 Good question. I don’t really know tbh. But water is coming, that’s a fact. And it can only come from the aquifer.
The field is still charging. I guess that’s why we have encountered hydrocarbons below closure. But it just sits in tight pockets and can’t flow commercially. Just my guess.
@Pecten11 Yes, fractured basements are not that common, although as pointed out by HUR many such fields have been produced in the world. Now, 7z has produced so much water to date, with a water cut that keeps increasing that it’s just very likely to aquifer coning.
@Pecten11 on perched water, it’s specific to HUR and Lancaster. Perched water does exist but is very uncommon in the oilfield. It was a made up theory put forward because it did not contradict the deep OWC long advocated by prior management. To me, it was cognitive dissonance more than anything else. As soon as the 7Z started to cut water in early June 19, the shallow OWC contact should have become the base case.
@Pecten11 it’s my opinion
@rainbowchaser if water cut starts to decrease in the 7z, then maybe it’s not aquifer coning. But for now, it has continuously increased. It’s been 16 months... Maybe time to put that perched water lunacy to bed.
@Jiffybag yes usually you can tell where the OWC is from logs and sidewall cores. But here, since there is no matrix and big mud losses, it was difficult to tell. And again oil is probably present below structural closure, I accept that. It’s just that it can’t flow.
@Dr_Kaboom on L8, it’s my understanding that it was a far offset as it required its own flow line (hence the high cost). They haven’t said it was 5km apart, true. But I believe we’ll never hear the word L8 again anyway. So let’s leave it at that.
@Motherfaker It’s possible that I have already done that :-)
@DeltaFox yes, yes. Benefit is it’s cheap. Tie back is different : it’s a brand new well in a different location that you connect to the Aoka Mizu.
And yes you need to pull the completion 1st and plug the old wellbore with cement and plugs.
@bransonbull impact is you have a smaller volume of oil in place than you initially hoped for. Otherwise, no impact.
@ADUK L8 was planned to be far offset from the current 2 producers (about 5kms away I believe). They would have needed a Pipelay vesel to put that long flowline just for one well. So, don't know that it was 180mn (I had more 120 in mind) but L8 would have been expensive and probably a fail because Dr T would have drilled it too deep. L8 was a terrible idea.
@ADUK yes sidetrack from the 13-3/8” string. Yes, you need to shut down the field for a couple of weeks. But you get back to sustainable 20kbd and the payback is very quick, even with lost production.
7Z is too deep. Once water inevitably gets too high, sidetracking is by far the best, cheapest option.
@Mals1960 because the OGA thinks they haven’t appraised Lincoln enough
@Daveoilfriday Yes I can see a future. Now that we know what’s wrong, we’ll stop making the same mistake over & over again (drilling wells too deep)
@Pecten11 oil is probably present below structural closure. It’s just most likely tight, unable to flow. There is no successful proof of oil flowing below structural closure to date. Only traces and samples and such.
Disagree. L8 is way out and probably was planned to be below structural closure again. 7Z should be sidetracked (easy operation) and landed a bit further away from the 6 to minimise interference and most importantly shallower.
We know a lot more from 15 months of production and well tests now. It’s bigger than 62mn recoverable.
Hi guys, I'm posting for the 1st time on this board but I've been following you guys for a very long time and let's just say I'm intimately familiar with the HUR story (although not an insider, only working from public info).
I see a lot of discussions around the shallow OWC (ie. at structural closure) but it should be no surprise to technical people. It is actually the "Haha" moment we should all have been waiting for.
It explains pretty much all the unexpected things that have happened on the GLA and GWA over the last 4 years.
- Warwick Deep : drilled "deep", didn't flow, failed. Logic if the OWC is at structural closure. Drill underneath and you'll get a duster. No good alternative explanation from Dr T.
- The old vertical 7 well DST flowed good but only from a tiny zone at 1368-1376m TVDSS, ie. right above Lancaster structural closure at 1380m TVDSS. Everything undereath was tight. No explanation from Dr T.
- Lincoln Crestal was drilled at 1770m TVDSS, ie. above GWA structural closure at 1820m TVDSS (but not by much) and was a success
- Warwick West was drilled at 1840m TVDSS, slightly below structural closure and barely flowed.
- Halifax DST did not flow. Dr T blamed it on sticky mud. But it was cased down to 1179m TVDSS, below Halifax structural closure at 1040m TVDSS. So again, testing below structural closure failed. But there might be good pay above closure. We just don't know now...
- Then, the 6 and the 7z wells behave completely differently. 7z has a high water cut and had it almost from day 1, whereas 6 was dry for 6 months and only started to cut water when Dr T pulled too hard on it last Dec and January. But the wells are very well connected to each other and pressure communicates almost "instantly".
So what could explain such a difference ? Simple : 7z sits deeper than 6 and therefore has its "feet" in the water. That's why it's been sucking so much water all along. 6 is horizontal and at 1220m TVDSS, ie 160m above the OWC. 7z heel is at ~1300m TVDSS and its toe is at 1370m TVDSS, just 10m above the OWC.
So if the OWC is shallow, at ~1380m TVDSS, it should be absolutely no surprise that this well is sucking a lot of water from its toe. It should sidetracked and located at a shallower location in the future.
- The OGA has long been very skeptical of Dr T view of the deep OWC and therefore required him to prove it by drilling the deep commitment wells. I expect these to be cancelled now. This would have been completely pointless spending. HUR would have spent 100mn USD to just do several Warwick Deep failed DSTs...
The silver lining is : even with OWC at 1380m TVDSS, Lancsaster is still a large reservoir. All that needs to be done is drill the wells higher up in the structure. Dr T thought he was shooting for the middle but he was actually hitting the bottom of the reservoir or below it each time.
This admission by the company that the OWC is most likely shallow was THE missing element to fix things on the G