To: Check who wrote (1063 ) 12/16/1998 1:22:00 AM From: grayhairs Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 15703
Sorry, Check. I just got a phone call chewing me out for not yet having responded to your Post!! Sheesh!! For a minute I thought it was Ms. Grayhairs on the line!! Check, I am of the opinion (one not shared by some\many??) that there's no oil being produced from the Temblor. I arrive at this conclusion using my weak knowledge and comprehension of hydrocarbon generation, my observations of the flare (www.bakersfield.com video) and from the press description of the flare as it began making steam and eventually extinguished. I do know that there are numerous references to oil. I accept that there may be minor oil production but I do not believe that such oil can be originating from the Temblor sand. If there is "oil" at surface, I speculate that it originates from a shallower zone and is entering the flow through a damaged casing string\seal. (My interpretation may very well be incorrect but whether or not it is may never be known!!) I am also of the opinion (one not shared by some\many??) that water is being "coned" from the Temblor formation and that water is not being sourced from another formation. If that is true, there can be no oil in the Temblor. (With an oil leg, the well would have coned oil and generated one Hell of a cloud of smoke. It didn't, it coned water, so...) Again, my interpretation may be wrong but whether it is right or wrong could easily take 1 - 2 years to determine!! At surface, all condensate and oil (if any) will all be drawn off the separator at the mid-tank level and be blended together in the same tank. IMHOO BWDIK !! I have very nearly completed my DD on this prospect and when I have I shall either just disappear or revert to lurking. So, my sincere thanks now to those who have provided information to this thread. Good luck\fortune to all. Later, grayhairs