Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : KOB.TO - East Lost Hills & GSJB joint venture -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John M who wrote (14606)	3/5/2001 5:22:59 PM
From: grayhairs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15703

Hi John. <<The flow regime at bottom hole most closely resembles two phase liquid flow (water and supercritical HC).>> Interesting, this flow regime is what I intuitively would expect. It is consistent with a reservoir saturated with two dense and "immiscible" fluids. We can not, IMO, simply be dealing with a dense hydrocarbon phase saturated with a dense water phase. If reservoir fluids co-existed in this later state, then the blowout should have produced water from day one as should have BKP#1 on production test. Do you agree ?? <<The Z factor is 1.68 for the HC>> I had estimated 1.73 for Carneros gas and 1.85 for the Phacoides in BKP#1. I'm glad to hear that I'm at least ball park with your calc. Is yours for Carneros or Phacoides reservoir conditions ?? <<My program seems to believe that water will be in the liquid state although I would have a hard time arguing against a dense phase. The HC is definately dense phase.>> I prefer to visualize two dense fluids and have trouble comprehending the "liquid water". But, admittedly, I have serious difficulty arguing for\against any fluid state at these conditions !!! <gg> <<Beggs and Brill doesn't go up to the pressures and temperatures we need to simulate this well.>> Nothing I know of does, and that's the essence of the whole problem. <<It does work well, however, on a well I am familiar with which has 5000 psig FBHP and 2000 psig FTP 40 BBls/MMscf 10.7 brine and very similiar hydrocarbon composition to ELH. Basically, it acts like liquid until you drop below the critical pressure. After that, you have a three phase flow system (water/condensate and gas) which is pretty tough to predict.>> Yes, but those are VERY different conditions, John. At ELH the fluid(s) are hitting the surface choke at a higher P then you have downhole in your case history. Also, at ELH pressure should remain well above critical throughout the entire string. There should be no 3 phase considerations, anywhere in the tubing at all. It should be quite a different animal and the pressure drop per ft should not be near as severe, IMO, but who knows. Presumably BKP will have used their multirate flow test data from BKP#1 as empirical data to "calibrate" their own "pressure drop model". They should be in a far better position to size their tubing string then I am in any event. Thanks for generously sharing your thoughts\results and have a great day. Later, grayhairs