Wheres can this UPI article be found that everyone keeps referring to??
The Drudge report times out.
-
=http://www.geocities.com/barrybolton187/lok.jpg>
-
=http://www.geocities.com/barrybolton187/lok.jpg>
-
Announcement from ERM has made my day. :)
-
Hey @the flow , others here will be far better positioned to confirm or deny, but for H8tey the ability to test Alameda is intact, although they did have a little issue drilling through that section and had to sidetrack if we recall, the effect of which I don't fully know at this point. But there are/were 3 areas planned that supposedly will be tested in the mean time.
As for the Mud / Emulsion curiosities?
Few questions in play still down deep so I can see why AP stated in italics last ann that they were on the move. "so we’re going to pause this test whilst we study the samples and data we’ve obtained and get on to testing the shallower Alameda formation in the meantime.”
So between “preparing to” and “getting on with” whilst they pause Marti Feral, I’d suggest they (Namely AP & Co) will be trying to bring good news to the party ASAP. Just my take..
As for whether they can successfully Test Marti now or more likely after Alameda is done and dusted is one for the Alumini, but first they have to determine what went awry..?
And that's where the waters get muddy so to speak, as earlier in unit 3 they'd had a kick and upped mud weight to 1.45sg when the drill issue popped up. Then again in Alameda they got another kick and mud weight got upped again, to what we didn't know or at least I couldn't see? Although JIM has since pit forward an sg of 1.8, and that got me thinking along the lines of the mud video posted as to what, when & why?
Mud got upped in Unit 3 and again in Alameda when they sidetracked with higher mud again on recovery.. Up to 1.45sg & again to 1.8sg prior to completion.
So now you have a little sidetrack, additional pressure & a highly fractured carbonate reservoir to manage. It's getting tricky to juggle about that time onwards I believe.
As I said, still a few questions need to be answered down deep so I can see why AP stated they were on the move.
Thought about waiting for Human Intelligence (LB) to lay it all out for me but then thought why not give the Artificial Lad a crack at it? At least he uses a singular font color and style and doesn't feel the need to yell at me in doing so.. hehe ;-)
FollowingQuestions all drawn from snippets out of ASX ann's & please note the responses are general in nature and should not be relied upon. IMO
H8teyWhat is the maximum mud weight you could runover a highly fractured limestone carbonate reservoir?
Meta AI The maximum mud weight that can be run over a highly fracturedlimestone carbonate reservoir depends on various factors, including: Reservoirpressure Fracture gradient Rock strength Porosity and permeability Generally,in a highly fractured limestone carbonate reservoir, you would want to minimizethe mud weight to avoid: Reducing the reservoir's natural permeability Causingformation damage Inducing lost circulation A common practice is to use a mudweight that is slightly above the reservoir pressure, to prevent influx ofreservoir fluids into the wellbore. However, this must be balanced against theneed to maintain well control and prevent lost circulation. Typically, in afractured limestone carbonate reservoir, a mud weight in the range of 1.0-1.2 sg(specific gravity) would be considered relatively high. However, this can varydepending on the specific reservoir conditions. It's important to note that theoptimal mud weight will depend on the specific well and reservoircharacteristics, and should be determined through careful planning andengineering analysis.
H8tey What does this statement infer in relation to an oil welldrilling operation that didn't flow oil to surface on test despite goodfracturing and high pressure?
"It is suspected at this stage the lack of flow is attributable toemulsions in the lower portion of the test string. Mechanical blockage has beenruled out".
Meta AI This statement infers that the oil well drilling operation wasexpected to produce oil, but despite: Good fracturing (suggesting adequatereservoir stimulation) High pressure (indicating potential for flow) No oilflowed to the surface during the test. The team has ruled out mechanicalblockage (e.g., pipe obstruction) as the cause and suspects that emulsions(mixtures of oil and water) in the lower part of the test string (equipment)might be preventing oil flow. In essence, the issue is likely related to fluidproperties and interaction within the wellbore, rather than a physical blockageor inadequate reservoir stimulation.
H8tey How would this be of assistance? "Pressure recorders arein the process of being recovered and, once analysed, are expected to providefurther details on reservoir performance and downhole conditions".
Meta AI The recovery and analysis of pressure recorders will providevaluable data on: Reservoir performance: Pressure data will help understand howthe reservoir responded to the drilling and testing process, including itsability to produce oil. Downhole conditions: The pressure recorders willprovide information on the pressure and temperature conditions at the bottom ofthe well, which will help identify any potential issues affecting oil flow.This data will assist in: Confirming or ruling out the suspected emulsions inthe test string as the cause of the flow issue Identifying potential reservoiror wellbore damage that may be impacting oil flow Optimizing future testing andproduction strategies to improve oil recovery The pressure recorder data willprovide crucial insights to help diagnose and resolve the issue, allowing theteam to refine their approach and improve the chances of successful oilproduction.
H8tey And this statement, what clues can we take? "Twoattempts were made at flowing the well, however in both cases the completeremoval of drilling mud and downhole fluids from the test string was notachieved and oil did not flow to surface."
Meta AI This statement provides the following clues:
Incomplete removal of drilling mud and downhole fluids: Despite two attempts,the wellbore fluids were not fully cleared from the test string, suggestingthat the well may not have been properly cleaned up after drilling. No oil flowto surface: Despite efforts to flow the well, no oil reached the surface,indicating a potential blockage or restriction in the wellbore or test string.
Repeat failure: The fact that two attempts were made and failed suggests thatthe issue is persistent and may require a different approach to resolve. Theseclues suggest that the issue may be related to: Inadequate wellbore cleanupResidual drilling mud or fluids blocking the wellbore or test string Potentialdamage to the wellbore or reservoir Insufficient drawdown or pressuredifferential to induce oil flow These clues can help guide furtherinvestigation and troubleshooting efforts.
H8tey And this? "The well was tested through a 4-1/2” slottedliner with a packer set at 3531mMD. Despite good indications of fracturing fromwireline logs, FMI (see figure 1) and high reservoir pressures, results of thetest were not as expected."
Meta AI This statement provides additional clues: Wellconfiguration: The well was tested through a 4-1/2" slotted liner, whichallows fluid flow from the reservoir into the wellbore. Packer setting: Thepacker was set at 3531m MD (measured depth), indicating the depth at which thepacker was placed to isolate the test interval. Good indications of fracturing:Wireline logs and FMI (Formation Micro-Imager) data suggested that thefracturing process was successful. High reservoir pressures: The reservoir pressureswere high, indicating a potentially productive reservoir. Disappointing testresults: Despite these positive indicators, the well test results did not meetexpectations. These clues suggest that: The well's completion design andfracturing treatment may not be the primary issue. The reservoir itself mayhave properties that are limiting fluid flow, such as low permeability or highviscosity fluids. There may be an issue with the connection between thereservoir and the wellbore, such as a poor cement job or inadequateperforations. These clues can help guide further investigation and analysis toidentify the root cause of the disappointing well test results.
H8tey And finally, if we tie it all together with this comment whatdoes it tell us about the well? "The Marti reservoir section will now besuspended whilst available data is analysed. Testing of the shallower Alamedaformation will be conducted in parallel."
Meta AI Tying all the clues together, we can conclude that: The well hasa good reservoir with high pressures and indications of fracturing. Thewellbore has been properly drilled and completed with a slotted liner andpacker. However, despite these positive signs, the well test results weredisappointing, with no oil flowing to the surface. The issue is likely relatedto the inability to fully clear the wellbore of drilling mud and downholefluids, potentially causing emulsions or blockages. The pressure recorder datawill provide further insights into reservoir performance and downholeconditions. Overall, the well has potential, but there are issues with thewellbore or completion that need to be addressed to achieve successful oilproduction. The team should focus on resolving the fluid clearance andpotential blockage issues, and then re-test the well to realize its fullpotential.
H8tey What is the most likely answer considering all the clues?
Meta AI Based on all the clues, the most likely answer is: The well isexperiencing a blockage or restriction in the wellbore or test string,preventing oil from flowing to the surface. This conclusion takes into account:Good indications of fracturing and high reservoir pressures Disappointing welltest results despite proper wellbore configuration and completion Inability tofully clear drilling mud and downhole fluids from the wellbore Suspectedemulsions in the lower portion of the test string Pressure recorder datapending analysis The combination of these clues suggests a wellbore orcompletion-related issue, rather than a reservoir or fracturing problem.
H8tey Earlier they had encountered elevated gas readings and didthis. Prior to commencing the DST, elevated gas readings were encountered andmud weight was increased to 1.45sg. What effect might that have later onfurther down?
Meta AI The increase in mud weight to 1.45sg to control elevated gasreadings earlier in the operation could have several effects later on in thewell: Increased pressure: The higher mud weight increases the hydrostaticpressure in the wellbore, which could help control the gas influx but alsoincrease the pressure on the formation and potentially cause damage.
Reduced permeability: The increased mud weight and pressure could reduce thepermeability of the formation, making it more difficult for oil to flow into thewellbore.
Mud solids invasion: The heavier mud could invade the formation, potentiallycausing damage and reducing the effectiveness of the fracturing treatment.
Impact on wellbore cleanliness: The increased mud weight and pressure couldmake it more difficult to fully clear the wellbore of drilling mud and debris,potentially contributing to the issues seen during the DST. These effects couldcontribute to the disappointing results of the DST and the suspected blockageor restriction in the wellbore or test string.
H8tey What do the following drilling disclosures indicate? LR 5.30 (a)LR 5.30 (b) Alameda-3 appraisal well, conventional oil. Block 9 PSC, onshoreCuba about 140 km east of the capital, Havana. LR 5.30 (c) LR 5.30 (d) MelbanaEnergy holds a 30% interest and operatorship. N/A LR 5.30 (e) LR 5.30 (f)Fractured limestone. One zone with open slots in the liner were open to flow:3642-3880mMD. LR 5.30 (g) Drill stem testing over a total period of 6 dayswhich included multiple shut in and flow periods. LR 5.30 (h) Oil contaminatedwith drilling fluid was recovered after reverse circulation. LR 5.30 (i) LR5.30 (j) No formation water was recovered. Oil did not flow to surface so nomeasurable flow rate was recorded.
Meta AI These disclosures provide information about the Alameda-3appraisal well, an onshore conventional oil well in Cuba, operated by MelbanaEnergy with a 30% interest. The well was drilled to a depth of 3880m MD(measured depth) and encountered fractured limestone. The well was tested over6 days with multiple shut-in and flow periods, but oil did not flow to thesurface, and no measurable flow rate was recorded. The disclosures indicate:The well encountered oil but was contaminated with drilling fluid (LR 5.30(h))No formation water was recovered (LR 5.30(j)) The well was not able to produceoil to the surface (LR 5.30(i)) The well was tested using drill stem testing(DST) with multiple shut-in and flow periods (LR 5.30(g)) The well has openslots in the liner over a specific interval (3642-3880m MD) (LR 5.30(f))Overall, these disclosures suggest that the well encountered oil but was unableto produce it to the surface, likely due to issues with the wellbore orcompletion, as previously discussed.
H8tey What is the % probability of each scenario based on the facts asthey stand?
Meta AI Based on the facts, I'd estimate the probability of eachscenario as follows:
Blockage or restriction in the wellbore or test string: 70%
Reservoir or formation issues (e.g., low permeability, high viscosity): 20%
Incomplete or ineffective fracturing treatment: 5%
Wellbore or completion design issues: 3%
Other (e.g., unexpected geological features, drilling fluid issues): 2%
Please note that these probabilities are approximate and based on theinformation provided. As new data or insights become available, theseprobabilities may change. The high probability of a blockage or restriction inthe wellbore or test string is due to the inability to fully clear drilling mudand downhole fluids, suspected emulsions, and the lack of oil flow despite goodindications of fracturing and high reservoir pressures.
I don't know, what about the boffins, what do they think? Is our new Meta Materight? Can they address the probable issue and get a valid testin after Alameda, or are things going to be compromised regardless, so damnedeither way? I'm not sure but gut says the lower section may be compromised?
I don’t know, but what I do know is that some good news is long overdue which is why I feel AP hasbeat the drum back to Alameda y pronto senor, vamos vamos... H8tey gltah
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
 (20min delay)
|
|||||
|
Last
2.4¢ |
Change
0.001(4.35%) |
Mkt cap ! $80.88M | |||
| Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
| 2.3¢ | 2.4¢ | 2.3¢ | $26.34K | 1.125M |
Buyers (Bids)
| No. | Vol. | Price($) |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | 253857 | 2.3¢ |
Sellers (Offers)
| Price($) | Vol. | No. |
|---|---|---|
| 2.4¢ | 445075 | 5 |
View Market Depth
| Last trade - 14.06pm 19/06/2025 (20 minute delay) ? |
|
|||||
|
Last
2.3¢ |
Change
0.001 ( 0.00 %) |
||||
| Open | High | Low | Volume | ||
| 2.3¢ | 2.3¢ | 2.2¢ | 700805 | ||
| Last updated 14.45pm 19/06/2025 ? | |||||
| MAY (ASX) Chart |