Hi Cruiser
I think any work being done on U3 will be to use it as an injection well .
Now that U5 has been drilled it makes little sense to recomplete U3 as a producer .
That decision had to be made before U5 was drilled .
U5 will drain nearly all the oil that would be drained by U3 anyway .
The proximity of U5 to U3 indicates they have no intentions to try to complete U3 as a producer .
HCl certainly will dissolve cement , however it is even better at dissolving Limestone and to a lesser extent Dolomite .
Who knows how much cement went into the fractures and vuggs when they cemented the casing (Buru would know ) , however injecting HCl would not differentially dissolve the cement in the fractures and vuggs , it would likely just dissolve a cavern next to the perforations .
An Acid Fracc job on the other hand would open up oil pathways to the wellbore . (Damn F word )
U1 and U2 would have plugged vuggs and fractures with cement but they still produce well after the casing and cement were perforated .
I would be surprised if U4 and U5 with cement free completions don't produce very high flow rates on test .
The challenge may be not that they have low flow but adjusting the flow rate for optimum long term field productivity when in production.
I do hope they let them rip when they test them though .
There is a difference between flush flow when a well is first tested and sustainable flow under production .
Ufw in particular because of fluid storage limitations had only a very short flow test and its sustainable flow potential is not yet known .
However it only has a small oil column and appears on their diagrams to be a small field so probably cannot be sucked too hard .
Lots to be learnt about that oil pool yet .
We have spent the money to drill it , lets get it producing , hence what they are doing with U3 .
I wonder if they had to stop carting and had to shut in as the cyclone went through ?
Will we get an A today ?
gltah
BRU Price at posting:
31.5¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
