shareholdersunite.com

Thanks Pet, I always find your edu-posts inspirational.
If E/A is the world record beginning and T-2 rightfully can be it’s equal and ppl 236 is Holland’s ‘most promising’ then Arun comparisons seem conservative.

Rol…rol… Rolodex,
tap them as upstream
merrily..share-ily..JV as you care-ily
pipe them to downstream

So, if understood correctly Pet, Knowledge Reservoir understandably used a very conservative number because until a reef is proven by drilling, there is no reef. Based on what Bwata 1 results were they have to take this stance. The other day you kindly offererd up your estimate (though we understand this is purely your estimate) of the chances that we have a reef at Triceratops. You first stated 100%, then back ed off to 90%, which is more than fair. The fact is, based on what you have seen, heard and read, you feel very good about our reef chances. Should that be the case, we can conservatively expect Triceratops to be at least the size of Ant. There is then a very good chance that Triceratops is larger than Ant, and some chance that it is truly a whale.

Thanks once again for bringing some logic to the table and a great explanation of why Knowledge Reservoir estimated what they did. Very exciting, and that first report we get after they have drilled into what we hope is reef will be highly anticipated.

If we use the Knowledge Reservoir Phase 2 estimate and assume the net/gross and porosity is equal or better than Antelope, I would guess the new estimate of GIIP (Gas Initially In Place) will increase from 4.594 TCF to 8.835 TCF. Assuming an 80% recovery rate that would be a recoverable resource of 7+ TCF.

You may have noticed on the Knowledge Reservoir report that there is some uncertainty about the depth of the gas/water contact. They show the gas/water contact to be at -1500 meters sub sea for the “Most Likely” case but they indicate an “Upside” where the gas/water contact could be as deep as -1534 meters sub sea and a “Downside” where the gas/water contact could be as shallow as -1467 meters sub sea.

So the variables they are playing with are: 1. Porosity 2. Net/gross pay 3. Exact depth of the Gas/Water contact. The difference in the GIIP numbers for the three cases presented have more going on than the difference in the assumed depth of the gas/water contact. They assumed the lowest porosity and net/gross for the “Downside” case and the highest porosity and net/gross for the “Upside” case. I believe they have used numbers that are too conservative even for the “Upside” case but we will have to wait on the results of T-2 to prove or disprove that point. As Wayne told jonleba, it all depends on how much of the pay section is reef and dolomite. I might point out, however, that there is not that much difference in the high porosity limestone and the dolomite at Antelope. As shown in the previous post the high porosity limestone had a porosity of 14% while the dolomite had a porosity of 14.7%.

I believe that I will not guess at what the effect of the Phase 3 seismic will be until we see some third party engineering firm’s new estimate. My guess is T-2 will find some reef rock and the effect of the Phase 3 seismic data will have a significant positive effect on the GIIP numbers in the last resource report. I leave it for you to contemplate.

Pet, isn’t the gross/net at both Antelope wells unusually high and difficult to repeat?

STP- “Pet, isn’t the gross/net at both Antelope wells unusually high and difficult to repeat?”

1. At http://www.interoil.com/presentation/2010-08-23_Enercom_IOC_Final.pdf chart 13 they did show 88% net/gross for Antelope-1 and 96 % for Antelope-2. I am not sure this agrees with the determination made by GLJ. It looks a bit high to me.

2. I think to qualify for being called net pay the rock only has to have 3% porosity or more.

3. Antelope is the only reef we have so far. So there is nothing else to base our expectations on. Why wouldn’t we expect the next reef to look the same as this one?
If the next one is different is it more likely to be worse or better?

4. If we find high porosity reef and dolomite it appears that type of rock will be between 97-99% net pay based on data shown in my first post. So it depends on what percentage of the gross pay zone is of this good reservoir rock and how much of it is the lower porosity reef and more dense limestone.

5. Somewhere I recall reading that when these reefs have been exposed to weathering at the surface, before they were buried, is when the dolomite is formed. So the amount of dolomite present in any given reef may depend on what conditions it has been exposed to.

6. Another interesting comment I saw somewhere is that this type rock when it is exposed to weathering or penetration by surface water can be dissolved leaving “cavernous” porosity. Now that would be something!

Have a good day!!

A cavernous post by pet for sure! Here is a very simple view to help visualize what cavernous porosity means…http://itc.gsw.edu/faculty/bcarter/physgeol/gw/pores.htm

Now that would be something!

Pet is in full swing! Glad the bit is turning again; these kinds of discussions/explanations have always been the most fun and educational. If T2 ends up being anything like we are thinking, this will be a very fun several months. And the best is we are able to have it here at SHU instead of Yazoo. Amazing how in just about 2 months this has evolved into a great site for IOC discussions.

Thanks Maui for the excellent article. And in that third graphic the dark area looks like those bikini tops you spend most days glaring at on the beach.

Dave H has seen seismics that we have not seen yet.He made bullish comments on the last CC though.Next earning CC appears to be first week of March.Those seimics should be available then if they chose to release them. D Holland does respond to emails.

Good morning to all. Guess I missed it beforeCouldsomeone please post again the elevation of the derrick floor abcve sea level? Thanks.