She is a Giant!! - Printable Version

BP is hardly the only one cutting capex quite drastically. Somewhere down the line this will assert itself.

The question seems to me whether shale can fill the inevitable retrenchment of the majors (and OPEC, where many a budget are strained as a result of low oil prices, to put it mildly). Jury still out.

'Stavros' pid='64022' datel Wrote:I guess you still haven't learned. That makes one of us a VIER ECKE ARSCH LOCH I just looked ... I know it ain't me. I suggest you take a look at the recent data from Asian countries whose GDPs reflect whether they're selling goods to USA, Europe and China. You'll see they're all in recession. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-manufacturing/2218084.html WHY? Could it be that their overseas markets have cut back on purchasing because they entered recessions 6 months ago? Nah ... Or ... Maybe they're really flourishing and reporting negative growth just to fool you.

I'm not disputing emerging markets facing trouble, in fact, I argued this myself months ago:

Where I do take issue with is people arguing the BLS is manipulating figures for political ends. Invariably such stuff comes out of people having no experience with the way the BLS works.

'Stavros' pid='64024' datel Wrote:Read this again. http://unemploymentdata.com/current-u6-u...ment-rate/ Also go two the LINKS in the peace. I'm not the only won who points fingers at hokey numbers that show up when convenient.

We already had this discussion. That website is just one guys opinion. How do you know he's right?

After writing some 500 economic articles for Seeking Alpha and discussing them with readers, one thing strikes me again and again, it's always the people with least economic training that vent the strongest (and most immutable) opinions. You are simply not qualified to make an informed decision which economic statistic is better methodologically and quite frankly I'm surprised you even try. This really is a rather specialist branch of economics. It would be like me venturing into a discussion on which resource figure is a better discription of E/A, GC or GLJ's. I wouldn't even dare.

What's more, the gallup and BLS figures roughly move in tandem. Anyone with some training in how complex ecoomic figures are composed would see nothing suspect there, really.

'petrengr1' pid='64005' datel Wrote:

I have been looking at the last couple of presentations again (since we have nothing else to look at) and I think I am seeing a couple more indications that “She is a Giant!!”. Let me see if I can explain what I am thinking.

1. First, let’s look at http://tinyurl.com/p5bttdy page 5. This East/West cross section indicates, in the post drill picture at the bottom, that they think the reef extends all the way to the gas/water contact to the West. I believe there is an error in this chart and it appears that IOC also believes the same as shown on page 6. A cross section from Antelope-3 to Antelope-5 is more of a North/South cross section than it is an East/West cross section (see map on the right). You will also note that the formation no longer dips to the West on this map but it stays high all the way to the fault. There is no gas/water contact to the West. Instead we will have “wedge” of reef that gets thinner as it approaches the fault and it is too high to have a gas/water contact to the West. You can see on this latest map that most of the area to the West of Anteople-5 is even higher than Antelope-1 and Antelope-5 and about the same as Antleope-3 which is the highest well in the Field.

2. I really like this new map much better than the old maps shown on http://tinyurl.com/q2lzmbq pages 9, 10, 12 - 15 etc. Of course one reason is that the new map shows all of the area to the West as being higher and thus containing more gas than the old map would have allowed. Another reason is the intriguing area to the Southeast on the new map at http://tinyurl.com/p5bttdy page 6 which I will discuss below.

3. The new map on page 6 does not do justice to the size of the field because it does not show all of the area of the field that is above the gas/water contact. You can see a little piece of the gas/water contact which is the dotted line in the northeast corner of the map by the big N. So the entire area of this map is filled with gas and there is more to the North, East and South that is not shown on the map.

4. The intriguing area to the Southeast is interesting because that is where we are drilling the side track at Antelope-4. It is intriguing because to the Southeast of Antelope-4 the formation is no longer going down dip but it is going up dip a little and the map does not show how big this area is. The gas/water contact is at -2,214 meters sub sea so every thing above that depth contains gas. As you can see the map is only showing us the area that is above -1,900 / -2,000 meters sub sea in the Southeast corner of the map. So there is a lot more area to the Southeast that is gas filled but is not shown on this map.

5. Now let’s turn our attention to the North/South cross section on page 6. You can see that the distance from Antelope-1 to Antelope-5 is 2.5 km. Using this measurement we can determine that it is about 5 km from Antelope-1 to Antelope-4. Now looking back at the map you can see that if it is 5 km from Antelope-1 to Antelope-4 then there is another 2 km of gas field to the Southeast of Antelope-4. This is just the area that is shown on the map and it is clear that the productive area is larger than what is shown on the map because it does not include the area all the way down to the gas/water contact at -2,214 meters sub sea.

6. Looking again at the cross section on page 6 you will see that if we just talk about the high porosity limestone cap and the dolomite section (where about 95% of the gas is located) Antelope 5 has the thickest section of good rock. You will also notice that the dolomite section is getting thicker to the South. Antelope-2 had the thickest dolomite zone drilled to date. What is South of Antelope-2? That would be Antelope-4 and Antelope-4 ST-1. From the picture of the cross section you can see that if they are kicking the well to the South (or Southeast) that it is quite possible that we could have dolomite from the top of the zone all the way to the gas/water contact. We know from the September 18th Press Release http://tinyurl.com/pse9bd5 that Antelope-4 ST-1 found the top of the reservoir 36 meters higher than Antelope-4. We were previously told that they found the top of the formation at Antelope-4 at -1,911 meters sub sea. So Antelope-4 ST-1 found the top of the formation at -1,875 meters sub sea. We expected to find a gross gas column thickness at Antelope-4 of (-2214 - 1,911) or 303 meters or 994 feet.

Now we find the top 36 meters higher at Antelope-4 ST-1. The vertical thickness of the gross gas column at that point would be (303 + 36) 339 meters or 1,112 feet. The deviated hole will be somewhat thicker due to the angle of the hole. This may sound like a pretty thin zone when compared to the +/- 2,200 foot gas column up dip but I can assure you that people anywhere in the world would die for a 1,112 foot gas column in 100% dolomite. Let’s hope that is what they report after reaching TD.

Have a good evening!!!

Pet - Re: Number 3 of your fine post..... "Great day in the morning" !! In the past,my enthusiasm for the mind-boggling possibilities to the west clouded my vision of the entire field. I had overlooked the NE corner of the map on page 6 where you called our attention to the big N and the gas/water contact.Maybe even Henry Aldorf's 12 to 16 Ts will be surpassed in the coming years. Your remark about the map not showing all of the field to the SE is intriguing to say the least Just how much larger the field will be in that direction is still unknown.....could possible overlay the Ant S field as likely Antelope does over Mule Deer and/or Whitetail. Thanks again for your engineering "smarts" and you sharing them with us.