Outside expert thinks highly of IOC assets:

Gulf gas volume is bigger: Expert

Source: The National, Monday August 3rd, 2015 By MALUM NALU

THE Papua (Gulf) LNG project can easily surpass the K19 billion PNG LNG project, it has been revealed. PNG oil and gas expert Peter Ken Gemar, who runs a mineral, mining, and oil and gas exploration consultancy, said the volume of gas in Gulf was bigger. Ken Gemar believes that the new field at Triceratops is bigger than Elk-Antelope. “So we’re definitely looking at big numbers in this place (Gulf),” he said. Ken Gemar said from his experience in Saudi Arabia, no exact figure could be given as new reservoirs would be found. “I see the same story in Gulf. I’m talking 25 years from now. In our lifetime they will happen.” Ken Gemar said Gulf needed the support of all provinces to make the LNG project happen. “Before it gets in, we need to get our agreement locked in and done properly,” he said. He said a Gulf gas hub should be established at where all kinds of business could be done at special purpose vehicles (SPVs). These included agriculture, power, manufacturing, medicine, processing of iron ore, and others. Ken Gemar said condensate was an industry on its own which could be developed at this gas hub. “We have the resources to develop all these industries for the next 25 years based on 15 TCF, we can do it,” he said. Petroleum and Energy Secretary Rendle Rimua agreed with Ken Gemar. “Only in Gulf, we have about 14.85 TCF, and as I said, these numbers never come down,” he said. “They will continue to go up, they will appreciate over time. Elk is sitting on 8TCF. We’re thinking that it will not go down. “We have 14.85 TCF but it could be 15. In the next six months it could be 20. May be 10 years from now, it’s going to be 30. That’s going to keep appreciating.”

'my2cows' pid='61298' datel Wrote:sounds like he knows something positive about the new Tri well.

My 2 - Good am. I hope that is the case. As I mentioned a few weeks ago,if we truly do come in higher (as our guys think we will based on the updated seismics) and if the impervious layer is there between the two zones,then the lower reservoir might also be productive, [ yes,more ifs, but should this turn out to be true,this guy could be on to something big ]. Down the line we will know more . Have a good one !

'sageo' pid='61300' datel Wrote:

'my2cows' pid='61298' datel Wrote:sounds like he knows something positive about the new Tri well.

My 2 - Good am. I hope that is the case. As I mentioned a few weeks ago,if we truly do come in higher (as our guys think we will based on the updated seismics) and if the impervious layer is there between the two zones,then the lower reservoir might also be productive, [ yes,more ifs, but should this turn out to be true,this guy could be on to something big ]. Down the line we will know more . Have a good one !

Hope so... I'll try and go back and find where you wrote that. I didn't know Triceritops at a lower zone. geez, I need to watch this closer.

'my2cows' pid='61303' datel Wrote:

'sageo' pid='61300' datel Wrote:

'my2cows' pid='61298' datel Wrote:sounds like he knows something positive about the new Tri well.

My 2 - Good am. I hope that is the case. As I mentioned a few weeks ago,if we truly do come in higher (as our guys think we will based on the updated seismics) and if the impervious layer is there between the two zones,then the lower reservoir might also be productive, [ yes,more ifs, but should this turn out to be true,this guy could be on to something big ]. Down the line we will know more . Have a good one !

Hope so... I'll try and go back and find where you wrote that. I didn't know Triceritops at a lower zone. geez, I need to watch this closer.

In one of their reports on Tricera #2 , they mentioned that the lower zone tested hydrocarbons as well as water. I will try to find that report . That's why I'm anxious to find out as soon as we can, just how much higher the #3 well comes in compared to the #2 . Also,if that seperation layer is present in #3. Some wire-line logs are going to be very interesting.

My 2 - Just found it ! (with my lack of computer skills,thank God for Google !) On May 14,2012 the report on Tri #2 mentions a 264 ' zone that seperates the upper and lower reservoirs. The dst in the upper reservoir bore similar results to Ant 1 and 2 I believe. In the lower reservoir,hydrocarbons were reported (condensate,If I remember correctly, but testing was not complete. [ Over 3 years ago .....now I can see why some of our good folks on our board get "apprehensive" at times ]. We just have so doggone many places to punch "good holes" that with only so much money and few rigs it makes things difficult . Hope this #2 report will answer your questions even better than this old geezer did. Ha,ha.

This would come as a complete surprise to management since they have been saying 8 Tcf in Triceratops, Raptor, and Bobcat combined.

In the ASM presentation they stated about Triceratops "Targeting ~1.0 Tcfe (internal P50 estimate of gross, un-risked contingent resource)".