Question for our drilling experts

[jft310]

Odds of Ant 4 and 5 hitting are 98 percent it's said . The GCA estimates don't take into account the peripherals distance that GLJ report thinks exist . That was before these new seismics .
Or the GCA numbers percentage wise should move more than the GLJ numbers.
Drilling is the acid test and based on the enhanced seismics it sure appears GLJ was a better estimator than GCA. Gotta drill to get GCA to raise estimates ?.Are the improved seismics enough to get GCA to move ?.or what's the impact of new seismics ??how large ??

[ArtM72]

Odds of Ant 4 and 5 hitting are 98 percent it's said . The GCA estimates don't take into account the peripherals distance that GLJ report thinks exist . That was before these new seismics . Or the GCA numbers percentage wise should move more than the GLJ numbers. Drilling is the acid test and based on the enhanced seismics it sure appears GLJ was a better estimator than GCA. Gotta drill to get GCA to raise estimates ?.Are the improved seismics enough to get GCA to move ?.or what's the impact of new seismics ??how large ??

Without any information on flows or porosities there doesn't seem to be much basis for concluding GLJ better than GCA.  Heck, at 90 days today since spudding we still have NOTHING from A4.

I have for some time wondered just how these seismic graphics are interpreted.  To me it is sort of surprising why oil and water wouldn't show up.  More surprising is why low density reefs don't clearly differentiate from underylying limestone.  Maybe those darker lines are just that.  Anyone know?

[sageo]

Odds of Ant 4 and 5 hitting are 98 percent it's said . The GCA estimates don't take into account the peripherals distance that GLJ report thinks exist . That was before these new seismics . Or the GCA numbers percentage wise should move more than the GLJ numbers. Drilling is the acid test and based on the enhanced seismics it sure appears GLJ was a better estimator than GCA. Gotta drill to get GCA to raise estimates ?.Are the improved seismics enough to get GCA to move ?.or what's the impact of new seismics ??how large ??

Without any information on flows or porosities there doesn't seem to be much basis for concluding GLJ better than GCA.  Heck, at 90 days today since spudding we still have NOTHING from A4.

I have for some time wondered just how these seismic graphics are interpreted.  To me it is sort of surprising why oil and water wouldn't show up.  More surprising is why low density reefs don't clearly differentiate from underylying limestone.  Maybe those darker lines are just that.  Anyone know?

Art - Your words " since spudding we still have NOTHING from A4" ring true ! As the old saying goes " ain't this a hell-ua-a way to run a railroad" ! Oh well,sure hope that time heals a lot of this ' lack of info' .Even tho' it doesn't look too merry right now,I hope it's ok to wish you a "Merry Christmas" .

[ArtM72]

I hope it's ok to wish you a "Merry Christmas" .

You bet!  And a (bit of an early)  Merry Christmas to you as well!  And to our Jewish friends out there a belated Happy Hanukkah!

Now we should all hope Santa will find a good reason in the next couple of days not to put a lump of coal in MH's stocking.