Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Has Chariot mentioned when it expects to start drilling? I listened to Chariot's Duncan Wallace Webcast regarding Loukos and read through the Chariot RNS's and cannot find information regarding this... am I missing something?
How far can your sandjet perforators reach in order to penetrate a reservoir… I believe GRH mentioned 5 feet.
Thanks for your email and your interest in TD Tools. The answer depends on a few variables. The porosity and confined compressive strength of the rock are important, as well as the bottomhole pressure (as created by the formation or the depth of the formation. We surface test using the same cement/sand material as specified by the API recommended practice 19B and can create perforation tunnel in excess of 60 inches. For typical oil bearing rock porosity and strength, tunnel length could vary from 48-60 inches in shallower zones (less than 5,000’ vertical depth) to 12-18 inches at 20,000 feet of vertical depth in tighter formations. If you have a specific well scenario that you would like for us to take a look at and make some suggestions for, just send me the well parameters or a wellbore schematic with your desired perforating intervals.
Granit… thanks for the comment. I personally do not use FB hence not able to do the research any further. I also don’t believe in being rude or confrontational with people who are clearly trying to help other shareholders. They may not always be right but their intentions are genuine imho.
Just asking....
But who is Abdelhak Bouchtita and in what capacity has he made the comment? Is he not just a random individual making comments on FB.. Sorry I don't mean to be negative and I want to believe that what he is saying is correct but why should we accept that the comment is accurate.
Additional Sandjet (Td) replies.
I asked how much water is used for the aforementioned 100lb per perforation (30lb to clear casing, 20lb to clear cement, 50 lbs to create formation in the "tunnel" also asked was it reused...2nd question was "how does it compare with explosive perforation....depth of perforation etc... Reply below
Q1 Answer "Our typical concentration is ½ pound of sand per gallon of water (60 kg/m³) so 100lb of sand would mix with 200 gallons of water (45 kg of sand would mix with 0.75 m³ of water). We have some customers that reuse the water/gel portion of the slurry by pumping the return fluid into a tank or two which allows the sand to settle and they draw the fluid from the top of the tank for reuse. It often depends on the setup at the well- for example, if they are going to perform a hydraulic fracturing operation afterward, our amount of fluid produced is easily handled without recycling. However if this is an older producing well, infrastructure might not exist for water disposal and reuse might be a significant advantage. Also, the gel is typically plant based (guar or xanthan) so the return fluid is environmentally friendly with the exception of whatever formation fluid might be circulating back with the sand slurry.
Q2 answer"Typically, the length of perforation is more than comparable explosives, but at a minimum, equal in length. The real advantage for sand jet perforating (SJP) is that the diameter of the tunnel increases with distance from the casing, while explosive perforations decrease in diameter with distance. For example, a 0.5” hole size in the casing is very common for both SJP and explosives. In the SJP tunnel the diameter increases in size from 1” to 2” in diameter at the end of the tunnel. In the case of explosives, 0.5” is as large as the tunnel will ever be and it decreases in diameter from there. When calculating contact area to the formation of the larger SJP perf tunnel there is often a factor of 10x more contact. This makes SJP especially attractive in hard or tight formations. Below is a graphic that we are using in a technical paper that we are presenting at the Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference in October that you might find interesting as it compares the two perforation tunnels."
I stumbled across some posts from Blackdogtaff on Reddit regarding Sandjetting and questions he/she posted to TD Tools 6 months ago..... I hope Blackdogtaff does not mind me reposting here....
Just for interest( Sandjetting).
I e mailed "sandjet td tools" enquiring how the process worked...(getting the mud out whilst jetting, and how they know that perforation has occurred. May i add, i did not mention Predator or Morocco in the e mail..gives a good insight into the processes used 😀 Reply below .
Thanks for your email and interest in the process. When we begin pumping sand slurry to the tool, the wellbore will be full or nearly full of fluid (depending on if we are using coiled tubing or jointed pipe as the work string/fluid conveyor). As we pump the sand slurry through the tool to create the perforation tunnel, the bulk of the used slurry will flow to the surface and into a containment area. The sand slurry consists of water, sand, and a gel used to increase sand carrying capacity of the fluid. The gel allows us to more easily return the sand to the surface. There will be a little sand left in the well after the perforating job, and typically the tool is run back into the well to circulate/wash out the portion that might have fallen below the tool.
To your second question, the sand in the sand slurry performs the cutting and perforating work. We know the amount of sand required to perforate casings of different sizes, cement, and formations from 15 years of surface testing and well perforation. A typical perforation tunnel will require approximately 100 pounds of sand per tunnel. Unconsolidated formations may require less and more challenging environments like multiple casing strings will require more. Using the 100 pound example, approximately 30 pounds of sand are required to perforate the casing, 20 pounds to perforate the cement, and the 50 pounds remaining are for creating the perforation tunnel in the formation. We have been able to verify these quantities on well locations by performing injection tests to document that the wellbore has communication with the formation/reservoir.
The report was signed and released yesterday and we received an RNS today.....
On behalf of Scorpion Geoscience Limited, I hope this report is to your satisfaction Best regards, Dr Timothy Wright FGS, SEG & MIMMM Signed: 11th January 2024
Strange because on 31/10 just over 22m new ordinary shares were issued taking total shares to 1,952,011,569 and no holdings in company announced and yet just over 11m were issued taking total shares to 1,963,122,679 and this time a Holdings RNS issued... perhaps it's because the holding went under 9%.
Keith... I believe Paul and Lonny know exactly what they are doing and I also believe that your post may well be accurate and the reason for this is that shareholders are being protected against a hostile takeover.
They know what they have and they are confident it will flow. As soon as they disclose flow rates and volumes they will become targets so what do they do ... they raise cash to give them a degree of security... they delay testing or declaring results of any testing and they negotiate with interested parties under MOU's. I do agree that results and MOUs will be announced at the same time and I also believe that the sums involved in the MOUs will be substantial to ensure that any hostile bid would be for a realistic price. Of course I am only speculating and could be completely wrong.
The Company has opened exploratory discussions with a group focussed on the downstream energy business to potentially sell its share of gas produced at the well head subject to an approved CNG development plan.
Â
In order to accelerate the timing of substantive negotiations for the sale of its share of gas, subject to an approved Declaration of Commerciality, the Company has decided to amend its rigless testing programme. MOU-3 will now be the first well to be tested. This will establish the potential to maximise gas flow rates for the purpose of setting commercial parameters for the sale of the Company's share of potential gas produced to the present and future CNG industrial market irrespective of pre-drill production profile constraints imposed by its initial "Proof of CNG Concept" strategy.
Â
The Company has been waiting for over three weeks for an in-country wireline logging unit. A perforating depth control (PDC) log is required to depth correlate the perforating points with a similar log run before the casing was set during well completion. Critically this ensures that perforations are aligned with the reservoir sand intervals to be tested.Â
Â
As a result of this delay in the provision of a third party service the current slot for using Sandjet as the means of perforating has passed and therefore this phase of the testing programme is now being re-scheduled.
Â
In order not to delay further it has been decided to test MOU-3 and MOU-1 using conventional perforating guns.
Â
The Company is confident that the testing programme will deliver the results necessary to progress commercial negotiations for the offtake of its share of future potential CNG gas from the well head.
Â
Rigless testing MOU-3 using conventional perforating guns is currently forecast to begin on or before 16 October 2023, assuming that the wireline logging unit is released from its present contract on or before 10 October 2023. The Company will provide an update if there is any change to this date.
Mk111 what are you being asked to trust?? Sorry you’ve lost me completely… of course investors are going to be disappointed by the delay in testing BUT it doesn’t mean they are impatient. Are you not disappointed that you were mislead by PG or did you know exactly what he meant. The problem is it’s happened too many times with missed deadlines and therefore some folk are entitled to question what he says. It’s that simple.
AndroclesB.... I am not sure at what point the bank guarantee is no longer required but I suppose if a discovery was declared then one would expect that the minimum work requirements had been carried out BUT it could be that a minimum number of wells had to be drilled and we know that PRD have satisfied that requirement.
I assumed that if a discovery was declared then the funds being held under the guarantee could be used to pay the bonus of £1m but I really don't know and I only mentioned it because Keith (who I have a lot of respect for) made comments on ADVFN based on PRD having to make the payment of £1m within 30 days of announcing a discovery.