Here's a commentary update and correction to my prior comments on this well.
I wonder if this drilling status report received today (from IOC - what a shocker!!!!) is a result of my notifying the proxy company of a serious problem if IOC fails to update us frequently (like daily) up to the meeting date of Feb 14. As I noted to them, there is a big problem in that proxy votes who have to vote by the 10th cannot change their vote after that day,even though the meeting is 4 days later AND as we can see very big stuff will happen or will fail to happen during that time period. In either case it is valuable MATERIAL INFORMATION to people making a decision. Again as I said, Hession's poor planning is creating two classes of shareholders - the majority which are proxy voters and then the rest who will attend the meeting and can vote 4 days later, and have advantage of 4 additonal days of progress info on Antelope 7ST. NOT FAIR. Potential lawsuits could happen no matter what they do now, other than delay the vote until well AFTER well operations are finished. The first deal is botched by Hession and now this one too! He's being consistent at least.
Speaking of botched, it look's like I botched my statements in the TIMING section above. My bad. First of all the well program says the well TD is planned to be 2300 m (before sidetracking). And now the sidetrack still has the same measured depth TD. That doesn't quite add up unless they shortened the total TVD depth of the well because the press release is in measured depth. A sidetrack requires drilling a deviated hole at least a short distance away from a wellbore to get away from the damaged/problem zone.
Also their days vs. depth plot shows they might be drilling a much deeper hole down to 3300m perhaps to Deep Antelope. It looks like they have plans under consideration. That's a contingency. They were NOT tracking their Technical Limit curve as I stated above, when they ran into problems and had to sidetrack. Sorry about that error. They were behind about 12 days when they ran into trouble. The graph was based on the Most Likely top of Kapau depth of 1983.5 m (at least the most likely depth per Total and IOC, but probabaly NOT agreed by OSH). They drilled below this depth to 2127 m and did not see the Kapau top (which was well within expectations per OSH comment in their drilling report o n their web site). TOT did not run casing at this point, which is typically what a flat spot on a days vs. depth plot represents. Rather they plugged back and sidetracked and are giving it another go to drill to the same planned TD. So apparently this well is more like a "Bypass" than a true sidetrack.
So what's left is this?
1. Drill to top of Kapau. Based on prior attempt this would be somewhere below 2127 m. They were at 1980 m ~1.5 days ago probably early Tuesday Jan 31. They have made about 24 m/day on average from the depth reported on 6 am Jan 19 in a prior posting which was at 1675 m depth. If they kept this pace, they could drill to TD of 2300 m in about 12 more days from Jan 31 or in others words TD could come near Feb 12. This would be the case where they don't see the Kapau top and just drill on to TD. But they may see the Kapau. If so they will stop.
2. IF they are sure they have penetrated the top of the Kapau, their plan was to stop and run a 9 5/8" liner to the top of it. Then drill ahead an 8.5" hole to the bottom of the water leg of the Kapau which originally was expected at 2303 m TVDRT. But their days vs. depth plot is inconsistent from here on. Clearly if they are in the Kapau, they will want to drill all the way through it. They will have to get permission from the government to go beyond their permitted depth of 2300 m. It appears they intended to case off the pay zone after logging it, presumably for flow testing and possible further deepening of the well. Any further deepening would be a contingency case which has not been revealed to us publicly.
So finding or not finding the Kapau pay zone and getting to TD is iminent. They should know it by readings on their Log While Drilling tools, cuttings in the mud and increase in gas (or oil) content in the mud and cuttings. Also the Orubadi shale could slow them down, and averaging 24 m/day (78.7 ft/day) may not be possible due to hole problems. In any case that is a glacial pace. If things were to speed up, they could surprise us. It would be nice if they got through it and started logging it with open hole logs, taking samples etc., before casing it off OR P&A the well or deepening it (after permit revision).
So if things go well and we find the Kapau pay zone, we could have it all logged in tested in February. But from there on that affects only the CRP and those filing lawsuits.
Kaliboo - a couple of comments. I haven't heard a lot of discussion as to whether the Kapau has true reefal facies, but the dolomitization suggests that. So,besides the lower pressure environment, another problem could be actual holes, even caverns at the top. When your drill string drops 5 feet and your mud flushes out, you're in deep trouble.
Also, I'd guess 2300m is not the "permitted depth". As I pointed out before, the well is AFE's for 3300m, so normal procedure would be to permit the well to that depth. Which means we could still see a deeper test without the need for government approvals. Not that they would not give a quick assent. Probably around Christmas, the way this well is going.
I've never heard the term "bypass", they were all "sidetracks". Probably the usage is peculiar to different companies.
Finally, I once gave my boss a 20-page draft of a new strategy we were working on. He said it was great, but told me to say exactly the same thing, but in 10 pages. It was much better. To this day, I try to cut everything I write in half. Give it a try.
Here's a commentary update and correction to my prior comments on this well.
I wonder if this drilling status report received today (from IOC - what a shocker!!!!) is a result of my notifying the proxy company of a serious problem if IOC fails to update us frequently (like daily) up to the meeting date of Feb 14. As I noted to them, there is a big problem in that proxy votes who have to vote by the 10th cannot change their vote after that day,even though the meeting is 4 days later AND as we can see very big stuff will happen or will fail to happen during that time period. In either case it is valuable MATERIAL INFORMATION to people making a decision. Again as I said, Hession's poor planning is creating two classes of shareholders - the majority which are proxy voters and then the rest who will attend the meeting and can vote 4 days later, and have advantage of 4 additonal days of progress info on Antelope 7ST. NOT FAIR. Potential lawsuits could happen no matter what they do now, other than delay the vote until well AFTER well operations are finished. The first deal is botched by Hession and now this one too! He's being consistent at least.
Speaking of botched, it look's like I botched my statements in the TIMING section above. My bad. First of all the well program says the well TD is planned to be 2300 m (before sidetracking). And now the sidetrack still has the same measured depth TD. That doesn't quite add up unless they shortened the total TVD depth of the well because the press release is in measured depth. A sidetrack requires drilling a deviated hole at least a short distance away from a wellbore to get away from the damaged/problem zone.
Also their days vs. depth plot shows they might be drilling a much deeper hole down to 3300m perhaps to Deep Antelope. It looks like they have plans under consideration. That's a contingency. They were NOT tracking their Technical Limit curve as I stated above, when they ran into problems and had to sidetrack. Sorry about that error. They were behind about 12 days when they ran into trouble. The graph was based on the Most Likely top of Kapau depth of 1983.5 m (at least the most likely depth per Total and IOC, but probabaly NOT agreed by OSH). They drilled below this depth to 2127 m and did not see the Kapau top (which was well within expectations per OSH comment in their drilling report o n their web site). TOT did not run casing at this point, which is typically what a flat spot on a days vs. depth plot represents. Rather they plugged back and sidetracked and are giving it another go to drill to the same planned TD. So apparently this well is more like a "Bypass" than a true sidetrack.
So what's left is this?
1. Drill to top of Kapau. Based on prior attempt this would be somewhere below 2127 m. They were at 1980 m ~1.5 days ago probably early Tuesday Jan 31. They have made about 24 m/day on average from the depth reported on 6 am Jan 19 in a prior posting which was at 1675 m depth. If they kept this pace, they could drill to TD of 2300 m in about 12 more days from Jan 31 or in others words TD could come near Feb 12. This would be the case where they don't see the Kapau top and just drill on to TD. But they may see the Kapau. If so they will stop.
2. IF they are sure they have penetrated the top of the Kapau, their plan was to stop and run a 9 5/8" liner to the top of it. Then drill ahead an 8.5" hole to the bottom of the water leg of the Kapau which originally was expected at 2303 m TVDRT. But their days vs. depth plot is inconsistent from here on. Clearly if they are in the Kapau, they will want to drill all the way through it. They will have to get permission from the government to go beyond their permitted depth of 2300 m. It appears they intended to case off the pay zone after logging it, presumably for flow testing and possible further deepening of the well. Any further deepening would be a contingency case which has not been revealed to us publicly.
So finding or not finding the Kapau pay zone and getting to TD is iminent. They should know it by readings on their Log While Drilling tools, cuttings in the mud and increase in gas (or oil) content in the mud and cuttings. Also the Orubadi shale could slow them down, and averaging 24 m/day (78.7 ft/day) may not be possible due to hole problems. In any case that is a glacial pace. If things were to speed up, they could surprise us. It would be nice if they got through it and started logging it with open hole logs, taking samples etc., before casing it off OR P&A the well or deepening it (after permit revision).
So if things go well and we find the Kapau pay zone, we could have it all logged in tested in February. But from there on that affects only the CRP and those filing lawsuits.
Kaliboo - a couple of comments. I haven't heard a lot of discussion as to whether the Kapau has true reefal facies, but the dolomitization suggests that. So,besides the lower pressure environment, another problem could be actual holes, even caverns at the top. When your drill string drops 5 feet and your mud flushes out, you're in deep trouble.
Also, I'd guess 2300m is not the "permitted depth". As I pointed out before, the well is AFE's for 3300m, so normal procedure would be to permit the well to that depth. Which means we could still see a deeper test without the need for government approvals. Not that they would not give a quick assent. Probably around Christmas, the way this well is going.
I've never heard the term "bypass", they were all "sidetracks". Probably the usage is peculiar to different companies.
Finally, I once gave my boss a 20-page draft of a new strategy we were working on. He said it was great, but told me to say exactly the same thing, but in 10 pages. It was much better. To this day, I try to cut everything I write in half. Give it a try.
.
Ha ha. This IS cutting it in half. Do you want the long version? I reviewed and edited a few hundred highly technical R&D reports in my last10+ years, so I understand brevity and content. The above posting of mine has too many topics in one posting and the intent on providing specific detail for the laymen to better understand in case they are still struggling with their decision.
This may be too long for you, but others want more detail. This is geared for the novice to understand. Anyway there won't be much more. This deal is about done.
I remember some West Texas wells where we drilled into a carvern. Exactly as you described.
Bypass vs. Sidetrack. YOu must not have worked the GoM. These are descriptor terms defined by BOEM in the Federal Register and used by all companies that operate there to properly categorize their wells Bypasses result due to hole problems. The target remains the same. Sidetracks are usually intentional to take an existing borehole to a new target and are common in exploration wells, but sometimes result due to hole problems, necessitating a different target box. Sidetrack also is generically (and incorrectly) used to describe both cases by those that aren't familiar with these definitions. What TOT and IOC are doing is mostly like a bypass because TD in the status report has not changed. I don't know what regulations in PNG (if any) require for well descriptors.
Kal and North - Thanks guys for your great discussions ! ( I didn't realize I must'a slept thru some of my classes years ago ) ." border="0" class="smilie" src="http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/images/smilies/tongue.gif" /> Hope the drill bit soon goes thru the bottom of the Orubadi and enters " some fantastic sweet rock" ! ....Would be nice,no ? Per Red,God Bless >
Ha ha. This IS cutting it in half. Do you want the long version? I reviewed and edited a few hundred highly technical R&D reports in my last10+ years, so I understand brevity and content. The above posting of mine has too many topics in one posting and the intent on providing specific detail for the laymen to better understand in case they are still struggling with their decision.
This may be too long for you, but others want more detail. This is geared for the novice to understand. Anyway there won't be much more. This deal is about done.
I remember some West Texas wells where we drilled into a carvern. Exactly as you described.
Bypass vs. Sidetrack. YOu must not have worked the GoM. These are descriptor terms defined by BOEM in the Federal Register and used by all companies that operate there to properly categorize their wells Bypasses result due to hole problems. The target remains the same. Sidetracks are usually intentional to take an existing borehole to a new target and are common in exploration wells, but sometimes result due to hole problems, necessitating a different target box. Sidetrack also is generically (and incorrectly) used to describe both cases by those that aren't familiar with these definitions. What TOT and IOC are doing is mostly like a bypass because TD in the status report has not changed. I don't know what regulations in PNG (if any) require for well descriptors.
Kaliboo , con respecto, I don't think you do understand brevity and content. Extraneous stuff not relevant to the thought is not "detail", it's verbal diarhea. If you think a laymen/novice is illuminated, you're living in a professorial dream. Or tell it to my wife. As the Emperor said to Mozart, "too many notes".
You're right, I never worked the Gulf of Mexico. I was reponsible for exploration in PNG, Peru, and Nigeria, to name a few. I wasn't disputing the use of the term "bypass", in fact it's a good distinction, it just wasn't something I ever heard in my company,(although, obviously, we had major GOM holdings).
Is there an indication as to where this ST/bypass vertical well is positioned in relationship to the first hole poked? Same well pad? How close is it to the first well? Thanks.
02-03-2017, 01:39 PM (This post was last modified: 02-03-2017, 02:09 PM by bdahl385.)
(02-03-2017, 11:03 AM)Liloilady Wrote:
Is there an indication as to where this ST/bypass vertical well is positioned in relationship to the first hole poked? Same well pad? How close is it to the first well? Thanks.
The drill rig and well pad are exactly in the same location as before. When you do this bypass (sidetrack), you plug off the old well at a spot uphole from the current depth where you had problems. The info provided earlier said they went back to ~1200m and cemented off the original well. a whipstock is ran to help guide the drill bit out thru a window they mill out of the existing steel casing. The new bore will be guided by downhole sensors that allows them to steer the bit to wherever they want it to go. I would guess based on previous informaton that the new well bore will basically parallel the old path (vertical well), but moved over maybe 50 -100 meters to provide some structural isolation from the original well bore.
To drill a secondary wellbore away from an original wellbore. A sidetracking operation may be done intentionally or may occur accidentally. Intentional sidetracks might bypass an unusable section of the original wellbore or explore a geologic feature nearby. In the bypass case, the secondary wellbore is usually drilled substantially parallel to the original well, which may be inaccessible due to an irretrievable fish, junk in the hole, or a collapsed wellbore.
A secondary wellbore drilled away from the original hole. It is possible to have multiple sidetracks, each of which might be drilled for a different reason.
Here is an animation video from youtube showing a representation of a typical process:
Is there an indication as to where this ST/bypass vertical well is positioned in relationship to the first hole poked? Same well pad? How close is it to the first well? Thanks.
On the 25th the TVD was 1688, inclination: 6 degrees, and Azimuth: 183.55 degrees. So this indicates between 50-80m of horizontal travel over 500m of vertical travel, and all of it just to the west of due south. The Asimuth then varied between 180 and 132 degrees for the next 300m with an additional 30m of horizontal travel.
As of the 1st of feb, the side trace was almost exactly due south of the original well bore at about 100m horizontal separation.
If we look at the presentation that Phil and his people provided in (July?) last year, we can see that if the original well bore was on the wrong side of the fault, and the rubble zone caused them to lose the hole, then the new side-track is also on the western side of the fault, and will prove up results as Oil Search put it very well "Within expectations".
This well and its side track is a way for the consortium that is ripping us off, to have the appearance of doing the right thing, to please the regulators, and courts, whilst not endangering IOC/XOM/OSH ability to push the estimate down and ensure a lower payout to the shareholders.
I have attached a cutting from Phil's presentation, and I have marked the location of the sidetrack with a blue dot.
Is there an indication as to where this ST/bypass vertical well is positioned in relationship to the first hole poked? Same well pad? How close is it to the first well? Thanks.
On the 25th the TVD was 1688, inclination: 6 degrees, and Azimuth: 183.55 degrees. So this indicates between 50-80m of horizontal travel over 500m of vertical travel, and all of it just to the west of due south. The Asimuth then varied between 180 and 132 degrees for the next 300m with an additional 30m of horizontal travel.
As of the 1st of feb, the side trace was almost exactly due south of the original well bore at about 100m horizontal separation.
If we look at the presentation that Phil and his people provided in (July?) last year, we can see that if the original well bore was on the wrong side of the fault, and the rubble zone caused them to lose the hole, then the new side-track is also on the western side of the fault, and will prove up results as Oil Search put it very well "Within expectations".
This well and its side track is a way for the consortium that is ripping us off, to have the appearance of doing the right thing, to please the regulators, and courts, whilst not endangering IOC/XOM/OSH ability to push the estimate down and ensure a lower payout to the shareholders.
I have attached a cutting from Phil's presentation, and I have marked the location of the sidetrack with a blue dot.
Nice post. Thanks for sharing. Sad but probably true.
