Albright Adam says hi, his thoughts, page-7

Maybe I'm missing something obvious but where do you get 160 boepd currently from 77H?

The only figure fact that has been reported was the 0.41mmscfgd recovered @8/10. That, together
with 229 barrels of water and oil recovered per day. Note the lack of info regarding the breakdown of that
229 bow & oil. 77H as reported on 27/10 is EXPECTED to flow basically about 0.7mmscfgd plus 40 bopd
during ongoing-water recovery. So EXPECTING less oil than their original LGR of 100boo / 1mmscfg
Previous ratio if 77H flowed 0.7mmscfgd would be 70 bopd. It most certainly would not be flowing near
that 40 bopd currently. ie. 229 bow & oil would not be comprised of 189 bow & 40 bopd, more likely
about 20 bopd if your lucky. No flow rates for bowpd & bopd given this update {as per usual} but on
my reasoning it would be a lot less than that. Regardless, CURRENTLY 77H is flowing 0.41mmscfgd
and about 20 bopd. BOEPD if you want to use the more generous 6/1 ratio is about 70 bopd.


90boepd CURRENT flow rate NOT 160 boepd.

HOPING to get to 0.7mmscfgd & 40 bopd OR 150 boepd.

Assuming no improvement on those figures {even with total clean up-which I would venture could
be a year away at the paltry pressure of 220psi, with 5000 bow still remaining} then 77H with 40%
declines would be producing at 90 boepd. 45% net to Oilex = 40 bopd. And I would argue for a more
realistic conversion of 10/1 v 6/1 based on current gas prices to oil prices. $8mscfg & $80 oil.
In other words the 90 boepd that they are ASPIRING to from 77H should be more like 65 boepd or
30 boe net to Oilex.

Says it all really in the ann of 27/10 when they state ;

Key observations from the RISC analysis are: 1. Cambay-77H is likely to flow at ~ 0.5-1MMscfd with associated hydrocarbon liquids for a sustained period of time during the stable production phase in the ABSENCE of vertical flow performance issues related to higher hydrocarbon liquid to gas ratio (LGR) and water recovery. "

In the absence {ie when all the water has eventually been recovered and somehow the LGR will right itself
in a nice fashion} Can't see how the LGR {if as stated has hindered flow-back thus far} will be any different
as time goes on. Would have thought that ratio would be fairly stable. So that remains an UNFIXABLE
problem and then there's the rest of the water to get out from an obviously damaged well. Good luck with
all of that. And if they achieve that, then the best it can do will be - 60-90 boepd GROSS after declines
because as they state, these will be the figures basically once ALL the water has been recovered.

And I'm getting a little sick of statements like this ;

" As Cambay-77H is the first well of this type in India and no formation water has been recovered to date, the duration required to complete flow back operations is not known as there is no other reference for this reservoir. "

Geez, I would have thought that even if there were no reference for this reservoir, that if you were recovering
229 bowpd and with 5400 bow remaining in the system then you would be looking at 22-24 days to recover
90% of it wouldn't you? Don't need a reference for that. That is why it is not flowing at 229 bowpd anymore,
probably down to 50-100 bowpd as stated previously, ie a 100 day clean-up possibly. Better not let that one
out, could scare the punters even more would be their reasoning. Gotta keep that SP partially respectable,
will need to be diluting that again sometime in the foreseeable future.

And this ;

Numerical modelling of Cambay-77H, using the Oilex reservoir parameters indicates possible competition between the fractures. If confirmed by ongoing analysis of production and test data, future wells with longer horizontals could be designed using increased fracture spacing leading to significant cost savings."

Problems in regards to competition between closely knit fractures is not something mind-numbingly new.
It has been well documented in many earlier wells within the EFS and other shale plays in the US.
Management if they were worth their salt, would know the inherent risks with closely spaced fractures
before they signed off on the process. Admittedly, not all closely spaced fractures behave like this but
the risk is there and has been well documented. Nothing against them signing off on it {hindsight is
a great thing} but I do hope they were aware of this information prior to making the decision. The way
it was announced above seemed like it came as a surprise!!

GLTAH