+- 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: T2, from the CC (/showthread.php?tid=1338)
T2, from the CC - admin - 08-15-2012
Thank you, Dave. There's a quarter bit there and put a sort of a layman's analysis, it's one of the largest columns that we've had. It's the second largest that we've drilled. The gas at the upper zone clearly is significant. All of these testings were in limited capacity. We're through not big bull completions like we had at Elk and Antelope, but limited capacity. We had no industry equipment for swabbing, so we're using sort of non-industry equipment for a limited swabbing, limited completions. So the rates were relatively low and we couldn't do conventional standard large acid jobs, just a light acid wash that we would have to airlift limited barrels of acid for trying to clean out perforation. So that's the flow rates of 3 million were indicative for us to confirm the hydrocarbons.
RE: T2, from the CC - admin - 08-15-2012
PM on CC
The uniqueness was, like I try to elaborate, swabbing equipment, there's no conventional swabbing there, that's highly portable proximal jungle. So we have to be innovative and that really is only a partial capacity of what we could delineate. We couldn't pull the load water off even with the limited equipment. We can't quite acidize, so we have limited results. We can perforate a little bit, get some isolated test, and it was mainly to confirm where the hydrocarbons are, what the quality of the hydrocarbons. Now that we have that, we can delineate through drilling, we're also mobilizing our logistics group to special purpose and build while we're drilling Antelope-3, highly portable swabbing and more advanced testing equipment, which we've always resolved those technical issues in the past.
RE: T2, from the CC - Palm - 08-15-2012
What all of this says is "We had a time schedule to meet and to get testing done and get the rigs ready to move to EA we had to take what we could get. We did as much testing as we time and equipment for and even with the limitations of not having the proper equipment, we came away with very satisfying results. Both PRE and the government were satisfied, so we will now move ahead to drill the required 2 wells at EA. The large amounts of capital expended were well worth it and the government is now ready to meet with us and the SD partners. These partners need the assurances that things are good, and they can take the deals to their respective BODs for approval. The green flag has been waved and we are ready to proceed."
Hohoho
RE: T2, from the CC - Libtardius Maximus - 08-15-2012
Palm,
Nice translation, I like the way you're thinking.
RE: T2, from the CC - Palm - 08-15-2012
'Libtardius Maximus' pid='8190' datel Wrote:Palm, Nice translation, I like the way you're thinking.
It's all lies Lib! Hohoho
RE: T2, from the CC - Palm - 08-15-2012
Would be interesting to get Pet's comments on slide 17. In commenting above on the relation between T2 and Elk 4 I was only noting the fact that they seem to be saying that the T2 well is placed similarly as Elk 4 is in EA. In other words T2 is at the edge of the formation that they drilled in to. However the comment they make also states, "The reservoir development in Triceratops-2 is significantly better" than Bwata 1, Tri 1 and Elk 4. Then they show the data in the table on slide 17 for all the wells highlighting Elk 4 and T2. T2 has some very big numbers compared to Elk 4 and even rivals Ant 2 in several categories. If this means what I think it may, T2 could well be the tip of a very large formation. They indicate the possibility of an "enormous attic", but this seems to indicate a Godzilla-sized attic. Has anyone really looked at the numbers in that table, and has Pet made any comment on this?

RE: T2, from the CC - petrengr1 - 08-16-2012
Palm-
This slide is comparing the gross reservoir rock (not gas filled reservoir rock) of all of the Elk, Antelope, and Triceratops wells that IOC has drilled. (Does not include Bwata-1) More specifically they want to compare Triceratops-2 to Elk-4.(note shading) They are giving the top and bottom of the reservoir rock on the first two lines and the total thickness on the third line. The forth line is net reservoir where they only include that limestone which has more than 2% porosity and less than 10% clay content. (The Greek letter Phi is Engineering talk for porosity.) I think they used to use 3% porosity for the cut off for net pay but it appears they are now using 2%. The fifth line is a ratio of lines 3 and 4 or a net/gross or the percentage of the gross interval that is net pay. The bottom line is the average porosity of the net pay.
They want us to understand that Triceratops-2 is the equivalent to Elk-4 which is the first well drilled on the flank of the Antelope reef. I suggest you look and compare the following two charts:
Triceratops-2 http://www.interoil.com/conference/2012-04-16_IPAA_Final.pdf chart 17
Note that Elk-4 is on the flank of the Antelope reef and Triceratops-2 is on the flank of the Triceratops reef to the South of T-2. If they drill T-3 at the top of the reef to the South they will expect to see the top of the carbonate 650 feet higher than T-2 and we will hope for better porosity or a similar improvement as we saw between Elk-4 and Antelope-1,
The enormous attic that Phil refers to is the 16+ km of carbonate up dip to the West of T-2 which is gas on rock (i.e. no water contact in the upper part) in a carbonate interval of 1,800+ feet thick. We still do not have the west and northwest closure of the field identified. That will be part of the planned new additional seismic with PRE.
The additional new seismic will probably also include some close in lines around T-2 and the proposed T-3 in order to get a better understanding of the geology of the lower zone at T-2.
I told you that we do not have a clear understanding about the lower zone. Here is a quote from Dave Holland on the conference call from the Seeking Alpha transcript:
David John Holland - General Manager of Exploration and Production
Yes, no, I think at the moment that's what we are planning to review with the seismic mapping and focus the new seismic on. My current kind of view I guess, I did elaborate it a little bit, is I think that the aquifer pressure in the lower limestone would make it, I think, to be a closed system. So I'm thinking it's probably likely to be localized around the reef, I would think. That the major contact for the field, I still think, is the Bwata-1 water contract, which would be the contact that we have in all of the presentation material that we've provided today. But -- so I guess at the moment, that's what the new program will try and determine.
So he is saying that right now he thinks the lower zone is localized phenomenon around this T-2/T-3 reef but they need more seismic to determine the extent of this lower reservoir. It is hard for me to visualize a lower zone with a higher gas/water contact than the gas/water contact in the upper zone i.e. The Bwata-1 gas/water contact. Dave Holland said the Bwata-1 gas/water contact still applies to all of the main field to the west and northwest as shown on http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documents/investorrelations/presentationanddocuments/2012/2012-04-16_IPAA_Final.pdf chart 19.
:
RE: T2, from the CC - ValueSleuth - 08-16-2012
Thanks, Pet.
Excellent.
VS
RE: T2, from the CC - sageo - 08-16-2012
Pet- AS always, thanks for your detailed and excellant work! You are a credit to yourself and to your family. I hope they appreciate you as much as many of us do,here on our MB. Every time I read your posts , I think I'm listening to my old prof at UT! (Dr. Folk ) Please keep up your honest and truthful hard work!! God bless you !!!
RE: T2, from the CC - Palm - 08-16-2012
Add my thanks and appreciation for your comments Pet. From all indications this really is a solid, world class structure. In fact I bet if we asked Phil to comment, he would say just that. This "short case" we are hearing about is near-criminal where they are saying things like T2 caved in, the wells are small and peter out quickly, Duma is demanding Shell in the meetings, the government has grown impatient with IOC, etc, etc, etc.
I can almost hear Phil making that solid and world class structure comment. From the CC and presentation I bet the feeling is that T2 will help drive value for shareholders and that value will be realized in the very near term. Even faster than soon.