Pet - Good day to you. This weekend I reviewed my IOC file. Many of your post (and others) over the years were a pleasure to read concernig our reefal and carbonate probable and possible chances of success.  In todays presentation ,they place the top of our target fm at 1911 meters. If my calcalation is correct, that should equal to approx. 6306' .In your Aug. 2009 post,you believed Ant#2 would top at about 6300" . I realize you did not know the elevation of the derrick floor,but if I remember correctly, you were very close.I originally thought that Ant#4 would hit the fm top at about 300' lower. If our Ant#4 top is much closer to the Ant#2 top, that will be a very exciting bit of information.....might even influence Ant#6 final location. If you have time, your comments would be appreciated.

'Thylacine-2' pid='53962' datel Wrote:Thanks for doing that research, Sageo! I noticed on the topo map slide (slide 11) that both Ant-4 and Ant-5 were shown lower than 1, 2, and 3. That is, they were off the crest. Slide 11 shows Ant-1, and Ant-3 on the crest. From topo maps in the past I thought Ant-5 was expected to be higher than the first three wells. Perhaps Pet can give us some clarity on that discrepancy.

Thy - Thanks for your response. I too await Pet's clarification ! Several weeks ago ,I also thought that Ant-5 would come in higher than the earlier wells,but after viewing slide 11,(with the latest siesmic interpertation) [ imho] we may come in very close to the earlier wells in elevation. I would sure like to be surprised on the up side !!   The statment " extended flow test when Ant-5 is completed" (or words to that effect) really "caught my eye" .  As usual.......we wait.  Good luck !

Sageo- I have no idea what I said about Antelope-2 in Aug. 2009 and apparently those old posts are no longer available. What we must remember is that we want to know the sub-sea depth so that all of the wells are based on the same datum and not confused by the unknown derrick elevation and/or actual drill depth.

I told you in my post of 12-9-2013 that they would find the top of the formation at Antelope-4 at about        -1,900 meters... http://preview.tinyurl.com/ojzklze

So today they told us that they found the top of the formation at 1911 meters sub-sea. When we draw a subsurface structure map we always use the sub-sea depths. If you look at the GLJ report http://tinyurl.com/lrjknkq page 36 of 51 you will see the GLJ interpretation of the Antelope structure and the sub-sea elevation of the top of the formation for each well.
Elk-4    -2,038.9  meters
Antelope-1   -1,550.3 meters
Antelope-2   -1,685.1 meters
Antelope-3   - not shown... Had not been drilled at that time.
Antelope 4   --1,919 meters ... From today’s presentation.
Gas/Water contact  -2,228 meters

So Antelope-4 is (1,919 -1,685) 234 meters or 768 feet lower than Antelope-2 and (2,228 - 1,919) 309 meters or 1,014 feet above the gas/water  contact.

Regarding today’s map http://tinyurl.com/n6ox33b page 11, yes, they have revised the map from what was previously shown as both the GLJ interpretation and the  IOC interpretation and yes, it does now  appear that they have the formation sloping down to the west instead of up to the  west. I have given you the depth of the gas/water contact above (-2,228 meters). The dark contour line is -2,000 meters. I don’t think I need to explain the implications of this change in the map. This map indicates that Antelope-5 will be lower than Antelope-2 instead of higher as I previously said based on the old maps. Antelope-5 will be higher than Antelope-4. Antelope-6 is also indicated to be higher than Antelope-4 based on the new map. I can not tell for sure but it appears that they might have moved the western boundary of the field a  little further to the west which would be a good thing if true.

They plan to do connectivity tests between Antelope-5 and the other appraisal wells. It is not clear to me if that means the appraisal wells in the current drilling program or all appraisal wells since the drilling of Antelope-1. If they intend to include Antelope-1, 2 and 3 they will have to do some work on those wells to expose the formation. If they intend to only use Antelope-4, 5 and 6 they can leave the formation exposed in those wells for the testing of Antelope-5.  There has been no previous connectivity testing done in the Antelope Field. Most of the wells were plugged off in some manner after completion of testing. Antelope-1 was an         exception as they left the very bottom, a very tight zone, open for a long term test that was never done. This zone would not be a very good one to use in a connectivity test. They will need to open the same part of the formation that is being tested in Antelope-5 if they want to show connectivity.

Pet - Thanks for your very educated (and educating !) answer to my inquiry about the elevation concerns. [And thanks to you other folks for your in-put also] . As we should expect, additional seismics often changes the shape (or depth) of the target formation a field. Appreciate all the worthwhile comments. The best to all !

'Putncalls' pid='53979' datel Wrote:I think pet said that even though A4 intersected the reservoir at the predicted point (used by GLJ) the map shown today may be showing a reservoir that is 10% smaller (at least to the west) than the one GLJ used.

Where are you getting your 10%?  I don't think Pet tried to give any such estimate.  Even if A5 is lower than previous maps indicated, if the formation is broader to the West, South, and/or East, it could still be even larger.  If I remember correctly, I got the impression from Laurie Brown in a previous presentation that with the new and enhanced seismics they are optimistic about possible upside in estimates.