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: grayhairs who wrote (988)	12/13/1998 11:11:00 AM
From: Salt'n'Peppa	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15703

We are really splitting "greyhairs" now!!!! Firstly, I agree with you, that we likely don't have an oil leg as such. However, oil has been reported as one component of the produced hydrocarbons, so I included it in my last message. Secondly, you may well be right about the condensate. That's not my specific area of knowledge - I was only trying to simplify a few points for the less oilfield "enlightened" members of SI. Thanks for your simplified explanation. It is much easier to follow than the other one. You completely misunderstood the "partial vacuum" statement. I stated it that way for ease of understanding. Saying "partial vacuum" has more meaning to most people than "pressure gradients" or "areas of lower relative pressure". Technically, I agree, it is not correct, but start waffling technobabble and you lose most people 1: If gravity were not an issue, then fluids drawn in at the "end of the straw" would indeed do so in a more or less spherical manner. 2: If those fluids around the wellbore were not allowed to move to the "area of lower relative pressure" left behind, what do you suppose would occupy those pore-spaces? 3: Yes, I did state the 18,000 psi. The "experts" have already stated that the pressure is in excess of 15,000 psi. Don't ask for a reference, I can't remember where I read that, but I'm sure someone else has read it too. If the water "flooded" the open hole section, then how can we still be producing the same amount of gas and condensate as we were before the water appeared? That doesn't make sense to me. Both cases for the source of the water are valid, given current info. You are entitled to your opinion, but I believe that the water is from an upper zone. Again, the "well production behaviour??" (incidentally, is this well well behaved, or badly behaved?) is also consistent with a casing rupture. You are assuming that the casing failed from day 1. Why! 15 days of gas and sand rushing at very high speed through a constricted casing makes for a very effective "sand-blaster". Don't forget that this well was side-tracked. Those doglegs are perfect candidates for casing erosion. I think you might find that if Boots and Coots managed to choke back the fluid being produced at the surface, enough to pressure up the wellbore a little, then the water production could tail off, assuming it is coming from uphole. I have no idea what pressures are currently maintained in the wellbore at Bellvue #1, but I bet it is significantly less than the 6-7,000 psi that could easily be maintained in a water-bearing sand at 12-14,000 feet. This pressure differential, combined with a venturi effect can account for the volume of water we are seeing at the surface, and it would not interfere with HC production at the basal open hole. By the way, I am not offended, and welcome any "constructive" criticism. I am the first to admit that I don't know everything, but at least what I have to say is useful. I would also like to say that if you go way back on this thread to the early summer, I was one of the only people offering any useful input to accompany the drilling of Bellvue #1. I touted it as a big winner back then and still stand by my words. Rick. PS. Greyhairs, send me a private email with your "coning" quibbles. I am very inerested.

To: grayhairs who wrote (988)	12/13/1998 11:30:00 AM
From: Gord Bolton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15703

I think that Rick and Grayhairs are in essence saying the same thing when they speak of Vacuums and pressure gradients. While we may all be able to imagine a perfect vacuum or a perfect circle for that matter it is much more difficult to find one in nature. The existence of an open pipe hole to surface in a highly pressurized chamber would create a pressure gradient with a vacuum effect. Or in other words the highly pressurized gasses and liquids would either be pushed or sucked to the surface by the vacuum effect. The pressure at the foot of the pipe would be less than elsewhere in the chamber and the vacuum or pressure gradient would cause gasses and liquids to move towards the pipe from all directions. More drilling and testing will have to be done to determine the actual quantity of natural gas and petroleum product that is in the chamber and the rate at which it can be extracted for maximum efficiency. At present both are open to speculation and various forms of educated guesses based upon models, experience and the data that is available. Place your bets. And share you thoughts and info on the thread. Many of us are interested in learning more.