Two key points re24 Aug 2020 19:30
Perched v acquirer
In the Q and A session earlier this year, Robert Trice explained in concise terms why they knew the water was perched and not aquifer.
Point 1 ) the water production immediately after shut in. He said it didn’t matter whether well 7z was shut in for days or weeks. Showed the same trend once started with very high water cut immediately on start up and then diminished to a lower steady rate.
Point 2) if the water was coming from the acquifer further below, they would have expected the temperature in the well to have increased by 10 degs, but it has not. Staying within 1/2 deg.
Combination of the two points together gave confidence that the water is coming from above the 7z well and therefore is perched.
I haven’t heard any other explanations on this board or anywhere else from the so called experts to disprove this assertion.
So, I ask, give me some explanation that counters this view, proved during the ESP?