Member Info for pijoe1212

i assume "fanny additions" is a french idea put on the table by Technip? I assume it like a share option for the exec bod members? whatever will IJWT make of this latest development on exec rewards

"the limits of flowline length get magically extended? Suit yourself, but to me such an idea is simply daft." ------------------------------------------------------------ not sure all got where i was coming from last week.....6Km..pipe in pipe length limit stated WW..um now there are other ways of heating flowlines.. lots of gas = lots of heat or power.. so magic extension ..not in my view trace or steam does just fine for me! hope the sun is shining on your beer drinking in garlic land?..i spotted it in the uk earlier. time for a G&T?

yep..shite happens i hear...NM on that!

responses to IJWT and wellwell

rising or falling temp GT's.? depends if you are a process or mech eng!

wellwell.. agreed - that is my take also.. heat loss.to wax point margin. (could i just mention in passing you where one of the leading objectors to my posting about wax being an issue..whatever.. we have moved on..).. now what if you had more heat than base case permit..like if you had two rising temp GTG's each on part load? no issue with that (tree hungers would say not efficient..but great for heat to power balance)..only saying like..if you can use the heat its just grand.. anyway..only ideas you understand

why..? whats the limit?

i hate to say it but that presentation just released put with other recent info / comments raised some very interesting questions...i raised one with the gor matter..one or two more came to my mind also...now what is the buoy sized for again? what is the accepted (or is that declared?) flowline length- how could you extend that or more importantly whats the limitation?

ad...hope you playing nicely in the playground before poker...LOL

sipp running the turbines in simple cycle and using a gas fired steam generator would burn more gas - simple fact (the GT hot exhaust gets discharged to atmosphere complete with its heat). cadger is most likely correct on start up with distillate as most solar mars units can run on distillate or gas with the dual fuel combustors (they are after all aero GT's which were designed to airplane use and these use distillate not gas as the fuel source!). but the AM has two 6Mw diesel units also, so can run on these when the GT's have no fuel gas....but who cares about that level of detail... (translation for boyzee: two big hair dryers connected to alternators (Gas turbines) and twin lorry engines with big alternators (diesels) as back up......).

sipp. i have known of cases where the GOR was out by far more than 15%..far more! i would love to know if gas fired steam generators have been allowed for space wise...then operate the GT's in simple cycle (nicely inefficient as aero derivative machines!) and burn more gas in the steam generators...but would the OGA allow that anyway..and now i am think about an upgrade to a problem we dont have (currently and possibly never)...so that enough on that one from me!

some apparent facts: CPR- states 6 to 8 Mscuffs of which 2 to 2.9 go to gas turbine driver. EIS - states AM capacity is 14M scuffs and 30K bopd is 14 with the 15% allowance. we do not know what the consent states. HUR now openly indicating moving to 30K " is likely" to require gas export route (my view on what they are saying!) MY opinion on this is that the consent is limited to a lower case than the 14M (or 12M allowing for fuel gas) to flare..if so are they now actively managing the expectation post first oil?

LOL..re-read your comment also and yes we are both saying the same thing for the same reasons! the selection of FPSO was i am sure driven by what was available 2nd hand and potentially suitable for WoS and within well stock capacity (using a downside case !) and within feasible cost and time plan. i suspect the short list of options was not long! for the sake of clarity - the GOR has no impact on FFD given the scale likely (more a case of how big the gas pipeline is). i am also not aware that FB resi would be any different to "traditional" in the GOR changing as field depletion occurs - but that for many years into the future one would expect.

i will make one further comment..my understanding the GOR will NOT vary with well flow rate (in the early / mid days) as it is solution gas. it is about what the GOR is and what is the oil flow rate that results in gas to flare that equals the AM capacity or consent limit (which ever is the lower). i say again - its the first time i recall HUR raising GOR in this manner as a material constraint. i fail to see what new info could have been obtained in recent months on GOR which is why i found dedicating a slide to the issue interesting!

genghis. GOR is not a new issue at this late stage - it has been there for sometime. my point was how the important of this was highlighted (at least to me) in yesterdays presentation. it is simply a risk (constraint) as are water breakthrough and wax. the risks remain until proven not to be issues! anyway i will stop now as it may sound i am "deramping" or being a "troll" and i am neither.

cheers sipp. the comments on page 19 of the latest presentation appear to me to be different?

Sipp - you are correct i have not read the EIS recently. but my point remains. the prsentation issued yesterday was the first time i had seen HUR make the connection between production ramp up (past 20 K) and flaring limits. happy to be corrected but i can not recall that being detailed in the ES. Jay kay - most oil fields have increasing GOR as the field is depleted - to the point they often become gas lead in late life. ziet bay is not unusual in this respect. the point is the GOR in early field life was far higher than expected... i am not saying lanc has a GOR problem (other than as noted by HUR), my point is some comment on here as if the 20K is nailed on dead cert and moving upwards will happen..O&G is not like that..there are risks and sometimes those risks crystallise.

ricfle agreed...but the 20K depends on the GOR also (i assume the flare rate is a M^3 per day restriction) so that is a risk. but i would assume (and trust is the case for good reason) the base case assumes a lower GOR than could be expected (i.e. margin on the 20K bopd). i am 100% sure Doc T knows all about ziet bay history and its in implications are risked into the business case at fid.

MrJV you miss the point? what comes out the resi is not known until it does! an appraisal test is just that. it is not production. it is not about people - hate to say it but your comment proves my point?

very surprised to see no comment on the key thing i picked up from the new presentation (other than timings which have been discussed).. the 20K bopd ..(17K average allowing for down time)..constraint on move towards 30K bopd is gas oil ratio and what to do with it!.. an interesting point i have encountered before (in the day job)..says to me loud and clear the GOR remains at large at the current time..i have mentioned before Ziet bay as a basement play i know of directly..GOR was a key issue. as an "oily" investor it is but one risk issue (like wax!). anyone who thinks 17K bopd is simply a "switch the taps on" event dont really fully get the risks.