Hurricane Energy Share Discussion Threads

[greyingsurfer] 07/1/2020 14:22

ZzxqryPathetic - filtered

[thegreatgeraldo] 07/1/2020 13:54

btw, I would not like to be on the FPSO at the mo, weather looks horrendous up there....

[thegreatgeraldo] 07/1/2020 13:36

Shanklin
7 Jan '20 - 13:23 - 7538 of 7539

. IMHO we are back to either believing HUR management, based on the data they claim to be seeing OR calling them out as liars. There doesn't seem to be much mileage in the thought that they might be misinterpreting the data they are collecting.

..I'll be absolutely gobsmacked if they haven't monitored the data they're collecting VERY closely. I should know the answer, but I've always assumed there's some hefty legal clout behind putting data known to be false in an RNS...... so when they say,

.."The Company is confident that the water cut observed is related to perched/stranded water, based on temperature data, lack of rate-dependency, and water production behaviour after shut-in periods.",

they are pretty confident. They're not relying on theoretical stuff from years ago, but data they've collected during testing - which is the whole point of the EPS, after all.

[shanklin] 07/1/2020 13:26

Thank you AquaeSulis01

[shanklin] 07/1/2020 13:23

Thank you Steve73

So (a) the temperature difference between water from the two potential sources would be significant as would (c) the water production after shut-in, and we don't know about (b). IMHO we are back to either believing HUR management, based on the data they claim to be seeing OR calling them out as liars. There doesn't seem to be much mileage in the thought that they might be misinterpreting the data they are collecting.

I am happy to continue to trust HUR's management on the basis that we have not IMHO seen anything to suggest they are anything other than honest in their market updates.

Had to look up OFAB... ...enjoy your lunch!

Cheers, Martin

[aquaesulis01] 07/1/2020 13:20

shanklin, I previously posted this



"Shut-in and choke-back analysis of the fluctuating Water Oil Ratio (WOR)data can provide clues to the problem type. Water-entry problems such as coning or a single fracture intersecting a deeper water layer will lead to a lower WOR during choke-back or shut-in. Fractures or a fault intersecting an overlying water layer have the opposite effect."

As HUR have told us that they initially tested Well 6 in isolation of Well 7z (which must have been shut-in) for an extended period in October, and post the subsequent individual running of well 7z we got the increased water-cut reported

[steve73] 07/1/2020 13:15

Martin...

a - see my previous post..IIRC rock teperatures increase approx 1 C per 100m, as a rule of thumb.
b - higher rate will "cone" more water.. nor sure about perched.
c - WC from coning will drop back after a shut-in period, and take some time to be re-established.

That's all from me folks, I'm OFAB.

[stepone68] 07/1/2020 13:12

Telbap - that's exactly the response I said you would get :-)

[shanklin] 07/1/2020 13:01

From telbap's post 7521 amd HUR RNS's, we have repeatedly been advised that:

"Hurricane is confident that the water cut observed is related to perched/stranded water. This is based on temperature data, lack of rate-dependency, and water production behaviour after shut-in periods."

Would somebody better informed than me please characterise the scale of the difference in:
(a) temperature data,
(b) rate-dependency, and,
(c) water production behaviour after shut-in periods
between perched water and aquifer water (were it the source of the water cut) in the Lancashire field

TIA, Martin

[steve73] 07/1/2020 12:43

Here follows my thoughts on the possibility of coning (although telbap's post 7521 from HUR comms largely addresses it already, but I'd started penning it so I'll post anyway)...

The density difference between Lanc. oil and aquifer water of some 0.15 g/cc means the drawdown at any possible fracture where the aquifer water might be being drawn up would need to be around 2psi/10m (of depth) less than any surrounding oil fractures. Without checking back in my notes to confirm, I'm making an assumption the 7z TVD is approx 4-500m above the aquifer (max TVD of the Lanc. oil column is 670m). So the Drawdown would need to be some 80-100 psi below any surrounding oil-bearing fractures, and given that the expected "reservoir pressure vs time" plots were not anticipating anywhere near that amount of pressure reduction, then I am confident with Dr T's interpretation. I agree also that aquifer water would be hotter than perched water, since it would be coming from a deeper structure.

I must admit that I do not fully understand why the perched water should be increasing with time, although once water does start to flow through any kind of matrix, the lower viscosity (compared to oil) will tend to allow it to flow faster... Perhaps some additional perched water zones have "broken through" some oil bearing matrices, although if they were connected, I'd have expected any water to have already been displaced over the eons.

JMHO, NAI, DYOR.

[steve73] 07/1/2020 11:59

tournesol... post 7402. I'm only slowly catching up with over 400 posts since the new year, but I'll answer you now.

I've not followed all the links to the reports that are being mentioned, and I don't fully understand what could be causing the rising water-cut, but one comment that I did pick-up that is plain wrong was that increasing water could cause increased waxing of the flowlines.

Increased water cut leads to a hotter flowing temperature (since water has a much higher specific heat capacity than oil), and if it it caused by coning from a deeper aquifer then it'll be hotter anyway. Added to this with less oil, there'll be less wax anyway... So a wetter production will tend to reduce the likelyhood of waxing.

I'll comment further as I progress through the outstanding posts...

and FWIW, I'm still holding tightly.

[sji] 07/1/2020 11:40

Would be nice if it's a director's buy!

[amaretto1] 07/1/2020 11:34

Is it a buy or a sell :-)

[m5] 07/1/2020 11:33

Each to their own, I have better things to do with my time that argue over something I have no interest in. Bizarre.

[katiegos] 07/1/2020 11:31

m5 NGMS is obviously very concerned about us poor investors left here

still holding with 50% of my portfolio in HUR

[gisjob2] 07/1/2020 11:30

Ngms27, have you even considered that the straight bat may be because what HUR say is true ! I know it doesn't suit your argument now you've sold but at least their explanation is based on factual information gained at the wellhead, of which you have none.

[ngms27] 07/1/2020 11:14

telbap, exactly as per the previous RNS as to be expected...They are playing with a bat straighter than Malans

[m5] 07/1/2020 11:09

ngms27, if you are not involved with HUR, why don't you just move on to something more profitable. Not being funny but whats the point commenting on something you have no financial interest in? You have made your stance clear, just move on fella.

[telbap] 07/1/2020 11:03

Just received this from Hurricaine:Our reported water cut figures have been as follows:11 July 2019 (CMD RNS) – 8% on -7Z, nil on -62 September 2019 (Ops Update RNS) – 7.5% in aggregate (unable to isolate between wells given single flowline production at the time)20 September 2019 (Half-year results) – 7.5% in aggregate, nil from -613 December 2019 (Ops Update RNS) – 25-30% on -7Z during individual well test, minimal water cut on -6 during individual well test To address your broader question, as stated in our last release (13 December 2019), Hurricane is confident that the water cut observed is related to perched/stranded water. This is based on temperature data, lack of rate-dependency, and water production behaviour after shut-in periods. Regards, Ben Hurricane Communications

[ngms27] 07/1/2020 10:57

What guesswork?Mr Ts likely right as I've pointed out, but there are definitely some anomalies that require further work to remove risk.

[farmscan] 07/1/2020 10:57

ngms,

Can I ask how you know where Dr Trice gets his research information?