+- ShareholdersUnite Forums (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb)
+-- Forum: Companies (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: InterOil Forum (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: Triceratops Field-A Pre-drill estimate of gas initially in place. (/showthread.php?tid=496)
- petrengr1 - 03-13-2012
Palm- We have been through these exercises many times before where someone has some unsubstantiated email or phone call from someone in Management that says we have many times more than the official number. We were told Henry says we have 18 TCF at Antelope. The next official number was not much different that the previous number. Now recently the number seems to have been lowered again by GCA. I have not seen the email from David Holland and I doubt its existence.
About the only way Triceratops will have 2 -4 times more gas than E/A is if they have 2-4 times as much reef as they have been showing and/or a very much higher net/gross pay percentage in the non-reef rock than we had at E/A. I have given credit for the additional reef found by the Phase 3 seismic and more than doubled (2.47 x) the number previously given by Knowledge Reservoir. I do not see how these numbers can be doubled or quadrupled (again) based on the information available to us so far.
Knowledge Reservoir’s highest number at http://www.interoil.com/presentation/2011-08-16_Enercom_Final.pdf chart 25 is based on a gas/water contact 34 meters lower than the “most likely” case and, in addition, they would have had to use net/gross numbers better than those seen at E/A for the non-reef rock. A lot will depend on the quality of the non-reef rock since the non-reef gross rock volume is so massive i.e. 49,254 million cubic meters according to my calculations with the gas/water contact at -1,500 meters sub sea. So 80% of the gross rock volume is in the non-reef category but the non-reef only contains 22% of the pore volume. So, even with this drastic imbalance in gross rock volume between the reef and non-reef categories the reef portion of the reservoir will still contain most of the gas. In order to greatly increase the gas volume we need to see evidence of a “very” large increase in the amount of reef rock present.
Even the presentation of GIIP (Gas Initially In Place) is a bit misleading since people pick up this number and compare it to the E/A Sales gas number. That is comparing apples and oranges. There is much misinformation available if one wishes to listen to it.
- Palm - 03-13-2012
I agree; if they somehow have something way beyond what we are aware of, then show us, but I think your calculation will probably be much closer to reality. Like I said, I'm perfectly happy with your calcs and what it could mean for IOC pps.
- TomCrooz - 03-13-2012
Thanks Pet. Personally, I dont know if my brain can fathom another 10T, let alone more. The numbers that are flying around in my head calculating the effect on stock price makes me dizzy
- jft310 - 03-13-2012
For the record I have never emailed Dave Holland nor ever received an email from him but I do read the message board . I report what others say and write.I bumped the message up multiple times.
Phil made comments on the last CC about T-2's estimate size.. They also were posted on the board. I heard those size estimates.Anyone else remember what Phil said.??Does Phil exaggerate of course..Does Dave I don't know.It really doesn't matter if Pet is right IOC will have close to 20 T's and thats enough for a substantial move up. I would think that an actual T-2 quantity number is Nov 2012 though.Just how far west does Triceratops go???That number would be after even Nov 2012.I would think we need more wells to get Triceratops size properly. We can start with 11 T's and be delighted.
- jft310 - 03-13-2012
Poster glenlivet6991-Some of you know him,I don't
pulled from yahoo.
Post: Triceratops Field 16-Nov-11 01:33 pm
Dave Holland indicated recently that Triceratops could be 3 to 4 times as big as Elk/Antelope(assuming the rig hits a gas zone. Verdict still out, of course)
The zone looked to be open to the West still. Have not found the end yet.
Looking very good.
Same post and same day and same poster.1:51PM
He will tell you if you ask him. He will of course preface it by saying that this is his personal opinion only one person.
Want me to pull the CC notes and the Phil statement about T-2.??
I would think Dave knows more then anyone else about Triceratops. Why?? He has more data then Pet.
- petrengr1 - 03-13-2012
For the record I did not say Triceratops has 11 TCF of sales gas. The 11TCF is gas initially in place. The sales gas resource number that I estimated is 7.345 TCF with a recovery factor of 80%, shrinkage of 10% for removal of liquids and impurities and 10% for fuel.
No doubt about it Dave Holland knows more about Triceratops than anyone else. I think this is some kind of third handed misquote of what he said or what he meant. For example if Triceratops is 62 square miles and Antelope is 18 square miles then Triceratops is 3.4 times as large as Antelope. He could have said Triceratops is 3-4 times as large as Antelope but he might not have been referring to the resource volume. Also, perhaps he said it “could be” 3-4 times the size of Antelope before completing all of the seismic. He would not have had Phase 3 data when he is quoted as having said this. Even now he needs more seismic data.
As far as Whale is concerned, yes it appears to be the biggest, again based on area only. IOC has never even said that Whale is a reef, even after running a seismic line across it. There may not even be any carbonate present. We do not even know if it is productive. It was originally a Pale/Subu oil prospect.
- admin - 03-13-2012
From memory, Glenlivet is a solid guy (he should be here with us also, as it happens), but this is probably referring to square miles, otherwise it's difficult to reconcile. In any case, I would settle for another Antelope, I think we can all sign up to that one
That would mean lots of stuff:
- IOC becoming twice as undervalued (one way to take care of that is...)
- Its negotiating position (and deal price, probably) much enhanced (not only because of T2, but also because of the confirmation of their seismic interpretations and the enhanced chance of finding more reefs)
- Increasing the options for partnership (it would enable several parallel monetization channels, for instance, should prospective partners want their own plant)
- It would make InterOil the new 'Arun' in SE Asia and overtake the Exxon/OilSearch license area.
In short, it would be a bonanza and show how idiotic the shorts really are. Why would anyone want to short that? For execution risk? That doesn't make sense to me.
And what's more, it's tantalizingly close.
- jft310 - 03-13-2012
It's big and it adds assets and would make buyers more interested today.That's what matters.Pet might comment on this.Can reefs be on top of reefs.IOC has told us they will redrill every well drilled so far to go deeper.Whats down there and why drill deeper???????
- petrengr1 - 03-13-2012
“Triceratops could be as big or could be even larger than Antelope,” Mulacek said.
That kind of sounds like my calculation above. Doesn't sound like he is saying 3-4 times as large as Antelope.
- sageo - 03-13-2012
To anyone on MB- If we were to enact a "guessing game"for the first DST test how would 279MMCFPD sound? Too hi...too low ?? Monday before mkt. open, should give us results. Anyone else want to "hazard"a guess? Might be fun while we wait. To borrow efi's quote-H and H to you.