Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
hole-in-one, Ron OK.
Several other posters have written/alluded to pretty much the same thing: Is there the most monumental of Fox-ups, deliberate lying (hubris, as WellWell would put it), or subterfuge, at play here? Both sides cannot be correct. Explanation please, HurBod??
gla
gla
Ghengis; fpso downtime it seems was conservatively set; recent discussion in the field has been suggesting major servicing/downtime could be somewhat less than the current standard. If the recent 'outage' was unscheduled, it may well be (one would hope, given the approaching scheduled maintenance shutdown, that much - if not all - of September's work has been brought-forward and performed last week. (I should naffin' well hope so, anyway.)
gla
WWW;
"I personally don’t think the 2017 CPR is an issue. I think the issue has been HUR management."
yep, agreed totally. Trainset. Ropery. 'kin 'ell.
gla
MCB:
"However the big issue is who is going to touch it and spend billions to develop it!? Anybody announcing a new Field Development will not get great press!"
Yes, exactly - who/how will it be funded? One doubts whether another market cash-raise will be well (sorry) supported. I've always thought, post dspp's 'buyers-strike' suggestion, that Hur should morph into HurProCo. But am also wary, especially at the current 'chapter 11' mcap, of the likes of Delek etc (I guess Cnooc are out the equation in the current political environment, as LanFax will be deemed a 'strategic asset' - by Scotland if not the UK).
The watercut of 7z is indeed an interesting topic. As you say, a proper tech explanation - from the company - is in order.
gla
Nic, Slift: acknowledging fully that yourselves may be entirely correct about the owc (i.e. that it is likely iro the structural closure), and the resource implications of that, I disagree with a couple of points from this recent thread:
(i) Nic; 'perches are unlikely": looking at the seismically-derived model, one would expect the probability to be for a significant number of perches (with a normal distribution of sizes) across the field. One might expect fissure low-end closure/sealing ('tight formation' i.e. fissures filled with crap in lay terms) in the deeper reservoir to exacerbate this frequency of occurrance.
(ii) In fluid-flow terms, i'd expect a pen through a water-filled bottom (or top) -closed fissure (amongst other 'open' oil-filled fissures) to preferentially flow water to oil - at any given local hydrostatic pressure - simply due to viscosity effects, with a turbulent o-w interface in the flowpath, become slugged in pipework at all angles, inc horizontal. (While the driving pressure may accelerate the lower-density to a greater velicity, the viscous drag through smaller fissures would somewhat negate that effect.) Am i wrong here?
(iii) Hur's drills found odt's frequently towards iro 1700 m tvdss, but only 21a-4z showing water @ ~1340 m (interpreted as perched in Hur CMD/RPS); is the indication being discussed ('shallow', 1340m owc, a la dspp) a refution (is that a word?) of the 21a-4 & 21a-7 results? If not, what is the inference here?
(iv) the tlf dspp-nimrod thread offered some insight into why nimrod wasn't buying-into hur, but nimrod doesn't actually state anywhere publicly, as far as I recall seeing, why he didn't like Hur's 'bullheading' explanation of Hal's results. A few lse bb posters considered the bullheading to be an adequate explanation, if i recall correctly. Any other thoughts on this?
Seems to me that even with a shallow owc, LanFax sill has potentially quite a lot of oil - but, in the greening environment, is it viable or will it become stranded (BP)? That's the investment question now, imho.
from a noily,
gla
Stu: a good analysis imo. Hur's frac model is built on fracture orientation and width distribution probabilities with an overall field perspective rather than that of any individual well, so there is bound to be significant variability in results. What is needed, aside from 6 & 7z well output qty-time, are further wells - eventually the probabilities should balance-out to the mean. It's unfortunate that a Black Swan (Sars2 cv19) has come along just when Hur needed poo stability to fund L8 and maybe a Hal horizontal. Oil seems to be diving firmly into the 'unloved' resource category, like tobacco did 20 or so years ago, but will still be in-demand at >80mmbbl/d as far into the future as I can see, so someone - probably not current Hur shareholders - will make handsome money from LanFax divs for a while yet.
On a slightly different note, i fail to understand why a few more fpso's (bit bigger maybe than the AM) couldn't be acquired at todays interest rates and on a similar basis to the Bluewater AM contract; that only (eh?!) leaves the wells & subsea....
gla
hi john pwh; it's easy to get confusedand often misled by some of the guff here. The important bits are those Pi-vs-extracted volume values - as that curve tends towards asymptotic ('orizontal) the reservoir vol tends towards infinite (-ly large, for avoidance of doubt); obs it'll never get there. Of course, the aquifer also comprises part of the reservoir volume, increasingly so as oil (or gas) is extracted. 'Perches ' can also include closed-downward volumes, and even - as i think some recent RT stuff has indicated - even both at the same time, connected but open to the reservoir - it's easily possible that 7z has transitted one of these and is merrily taking low-viscosity water partially preferentially. at currrent rates, a year of 7z water-cut would only drain about 150k m3 from a 'perch'. Either RT was lying (v unlikely), the tech analyses were plain wrong (also v unlikely), or Dr T was correct but there is a previously unconsidered factor in-play at Lancaster - we'll find out in a month or so.
gla
indeed, Slift - or a gas-cap may have got there first.
Noting (July 2019 CMD, slides 36-38) that predicted owc's seem 'confident', but (slides 13-14) 205/21a-4z indicate 'trapped water' @ ~ 1340m tvdss, whether there was something properly wrong with the former data, and the latter is owc reality? (Re-estimating oil vol in-place shouldn't be to difficult from here. ) Given the stated 'low' tvdss of 1597 m, that would unmake Hur's year, for sure. Am off to look for the 7-z heel depth now; sure this has been discussed before.
It's beginning to align with dspp's view, unfortunately - hat-tip to him if he's proven right.
gla
Slift; wrt comment "rather the OWC will rise with production over time (hence becomes shallower than first estimated as more and more barrels are removed)" - wasn't this what you were expecting anyway?
https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SPE-180000-MS is a good read for numpties like me.
gla
dbno; if poo goes negative (that short-term US-market problem is being 'fixed, apparently) for any length of time, then ALL oil producers are screwed (!)
gla
johnpwh, IJWT; yes, there seems to be a big disconnect between Dr Trice's previous owc work and what the current bod are alluding to. It will be interesting to see the evidence for a much shallower owc and how this compares to RT's, also obs the evidence for 7z producing aquifer (i think that is the inference?) rather than perched water. The outcome on reserves we can probably reasonably estimate ourselves fairly quickly. The big questions now realte to whether Hur will exist long enough to drill it's own new wells, or be flogged-off cheapside into the current wave of anti-oil green-sentiment market for pennies. Wish I hadn't been such a greedy b@st@rd and sold-out at the 57-64p stage a year or so ago. Lol. As an o/t, all this does make me wonder just how much the so-called 'experts'(in any field) can be trusted - no wonder there are anti-vax, isolationist and other whacky/loony-fringe groups growing in popularity.........
gla
p.s. anyone heard of LW recently or did he bail?
nice to see you back in here, AK.
wtf can we talk about until September?
Interested to see talk of Lin C again (here); do i recall correctly that Dr T at one point commented that there were 'other issues' with the LC test that made it 'slightly difficult' to simply plug'n'play?
cheers -
gla
Slift: re your 19:09; agree with all comments.
yes, of course it's theoretically possible for pressure comms over those distances (to be expected in a good comms network/system), my comment was based on a mental integration of the typical frac model as-presented by Hur of recent years - so i doubt a dst at Hal would make a psi's difference to 6 or 7z, even if flowed for some time. I am assuming here (oh no, the mother of all frock-ups!), of course that the contiguous reservoir volume is large.......
gla
Slift:
"So is increase to production worth the risk?"
imho, only if or when the flow/time/bhp's of the wells indicate minimal or acceptable 'interference' and water-cut. This bb sees expressed a lot of short-termist views which ignore what the EPS is (or was) actually funded an emplaced for: To validate the reservoir model(s) with the big perspective of offering a value to the Lancaster field as a whole, and the wider Halifax area of the ridge. I'm no oily expert on this, but one only has to look at the data Dr Trice has been keenest to show to see what is most important here: the PI-vs production (as a function of time), per recent presentations. If the data thus far - and Dr T's interpretation, of course - is correct, then the >500m bbl connected fluids seems reasonable. It's highly doubtful (imo) that the Hal end would 'see' pressure changes from the lancs end, so a Hal drill seems necessary in order to realise company asset value.
Supportive of your & AK's breif discussion wrt oil/water/pressure/viscosity, noting that even at equal static pressure, a water perch will, to some degree, locally flow preferentially to oil due to the higher (approx Thrice, wierdly) kinematic viscosity.
I see Total are now forecasting to to be sub-60 ad-nauseum; even worse than my 'John Kemp' survey responses of $60! At the same time Chile are trying to preserve the Atacama. What price H from carbon fossil fuels!?
gla
September's gonna be interesting.
Alexios; either your assumption is wrong or Dr Robert Trice's reservoir data and accomanying analysis is wrong; the decision - as an investor - is yours to make. Maybe read-up and review the available data (esp Dr T's comments regarding perch-vs-aqui water temperature)?
gla
Haggis-t; agree on good news re stabilised flow from both wells. The question remaining is to what degree is the 7z perch 'bad luck', or, more explicitly, what is the most likely 'realised-vs-model' probability of FFD wells also finding a significant perch; i.e. what is the 'confidence interval' of such: has the Dr T 'reservoir model version X ('CEO replacement') been , or is it being, changed significantly? We'll find out at the review......
I'm still with Dr T's general reservoir analysis.
GLA
DireEmblem; surely the best path to a good investor return - and satisfactory outcome for the company - is to 'prove' the reserves and their extractibility for the GLA (LanFax) asap, and so make the company worth what it should be.
Everything else is just cowing to the wolves.
GLA
jasond;
1. Please could someone help me understand why Dspp says it is
“Implicit in this is that the well PIs have both continued to fall”
He doesn't seem to understand fluid-dynamic drag, that's why he doesn't understand why the PI would fall in an exponential manner. (Exponent < 1).
2. “The #6 well, flowing on its own, under natural flow has continued to increase in water cut”.
7z and 6 have 'virtually instant' pressure communication meaning there will be flow between them. This flow rate will be a function of pressure difference in the fluids at the relevant points, with viscosity an additional significant factor, the latter effectively meaning water flows more easily.
Given the state of siesmic knowledge of the Rona RIdge, dspp's assertion/hypothesis that the oil at the Halifax end would be too viscous to lift is baseless carp. The drill results there are more indicative (shame about the bullheading).
Now don't get me wrong - dspp MAY be right - but the evidence does not support his hypotheses.
gla
Assumption, even! lol. Apologies for typo.
gla
have just read the 'coning & conning' thread and, frankly, dspp's assumptions have so much unsubstantiated assumption - some based on poor (wrong) physics, that i can't be bothered to correct his assertions here. Note to dspp: Assumtion is the mother of all f-ups.
gla