In response to Patient 1's question "Is it possible that it was actually gas oil contact?" my guess is that HS-1 may not have drilled the GWC - this is only a guess.
In a previous drilling report Eni indicated that the mud weight needed to be increased to contain mud gas - gas coming into the hole from the formation. But solving one problem can cause another. Increasing MW can cause mud losses into the formation which if they are not contained (more and more mud needs to be made up) means that drilling cannot continue. Possibly this happened at HS-1.
Wireline pressure measurements can be used to tell where the GWC is. Interestingly the MEO report suggests that there are two different reservoirs present separated by a substantial thickness of shale. This could mean one of two things: Either there is one reservoir unit in pressure communication or there are two not in pressure communication. The latter has the potential for significantly larger reserves (due to a deeper GWC). I got the impression from the wording of MEO's report that it might be the latter. If that is the case then this would be based on pressure measurements that should indicate where the GWC's are for both reservoir sands. Pressure measurements from flow testing will also indicate GWC's.
Going back to previous drilling reports, I would guess that the upper reservoir is a Flamingo/Frigate sand while the deeper unit is the Elang/Plover reservoir. The Elang/Plover is generally devoid of thick shale sequences.
Regarding P&A this well. It is an exploration well and drilled as such. Production wells, particularly offshore, are generally designed very differently. It is not worth the cost of plugging and suspending and offshore well which then has to be re-entered at a later date and then abandoned.
As to HS-1, so far so good. Hopefully it will flow!
MEO Price at posting:
22.5¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
