Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WE DON’T KNOW
#1





There is something about http://www.interoil.com/presentation/201..._Final.pdf page 18 that I do not understand. That should not be surprising as I do not understand most these seismic pictures. Please do your own DD and do not depend on anything that I say to make investment decisions. The following is just one man’s opinion.
A while back we had a fellow, who seemed to be reasonably intelligent, on Yazoo who was accused of window peeping. On yesterday’s RJ presentation we may have been given a glimpse of what he was seeing when he was peeping.
As I have explained many times before it is the thickness of the gas column that causes these reservoirs to be over pressured at the top. I have suggested that the reef being drilled at T-2 will have a gas column about 2,200 feet thick or the top of the reservoir is 2,200 feet above the gas/water contact. It is not possible for me to come up with accurate depths for the top of the reservoir at the West (left) end of the seismic section shown on page18 but it is obviously much higher above the gas/water contact than the top of the reservoir will be at T-2. You may recall that I have guessed the reservoir pressure might be about 2,600 psi at the top of the reservoir at T-2. I can easily visualize the depth of the carbonate at the West end of the seismic line shown on page 18 being as shallow as 2,600 feet. The reservoir pressure that far up dip would probably only be 2,500 psi or less but still the pressure would be approaching the normally recognized frac gradient of 1 psi/ft (2,500 psi/2600 feet). Also it is not clear to me what the trapping mechanism is on the West end of this line.
This seismic line shown of page 18 is 22 km long and is open ended at both ends i.e. there is still carbonate rock above the gas/water contact at both ends. What is beyond the chart? Bwata West is on the fringe of the two dormant volcanoes to the South. See http://www.interoil.com/presentation/201..._Final.pdf chart 20. Does the carbonate continue to the West and go back down dip beyond the mountains? Notice Pteranodon lurking over the horizon on chart 20.

I believe this strike line, shown on page 18 of the RJ presentation, was available to Knowledge Reservoir when they made their resource estimate http://www.interoil.com/presentation/201..._Final.pdf page 25. So they would have included all of that rock to the West of T-2. I think that means they considered all of that rock to be fractured limestone and not reef limestone. I think these reefs build up on the higher density/lower porosity platform limestone. So on the seismic we look for the buildups or increased thickness due to the presence of the reef. I only see a couple of small buildups that could represent some reefal rock on the section west of T-2. I think we will have to be satisfied with the reef at T-2 and the possible reefal buildups near T-2, identified by the Phase 3 seismic program http://www.interoil.com/presentation/201..._Final.pdf chart 14. I am referring to the green colors to the North and East of T-2 on the Phase 3 map. I believe the red high spots to the West are likely fractured platform limestone but I could be wrong. I think the platform limestone has been elevated by the emerging mountain/volcano to the South. This plus the fault on the South side of the seismic line probably assures us of a lot of fractures in the limestone. I would have to see more evidence to be convinced of the presence of a reef west of T-2. It is possible that something shows up on the two westerly most dip seismic lines that we have not yet been shown.

I think the next resource estimate may be higher that that shown on http://www.interoil.com/presentation/201..._Final.pdf chart 25 but if so I think it will be based on new information from the Phase 3 seismic i.e. areas to the North and East of T-2 and possibly due to finding the top of the reservoir a little higher than expected at T-2. I am no longer counting on the Triceratops Field being 2 - 4 times EA. I would recommend taking all hearsay estimates with a grain of salt until the next third party estimate is available. It looks like the reef we are drilling at T-2 may be only about 2.8 km x 4 km.

I think the T-3 will likely target the high point of the reef south or southwest of T-2. See http://www.interoil.com/presentation/201..._Final.pdf charts 14 and 15. Use the Phase 3 map on chart 14.
Reply

#2
Pet, thank you for your analysis. Given your new beliefs, how does this size up T2 relative to the size of E/A? Thanks
Reply

#3
Ebster- To be perfectly honest I do not have the information, data, knowledge, computer programs etc that would be required to make such an estimate. I can only say, based on what IOC has stated, that after obtaining the Phase 3 seismic data they see the field as bigger and broader than it was when Knowledge Reservoir made their estimate. That makes me believe the next estimate should be larger than the last estimate. The last estimate http://www.interoil.com/presentation/201..._Final.pdf chart 17 shows 4.594 TCF Gas Initially In Place for the most likely case. If we give it a 90% recovery factor and 10% loss for fuel and removal of impurities etc that would give us about 3.7 TCF of sales gas for 100% of the field or about 2 TCF for IOC’s share. I believe the new estimate will be higher than this but have no way to put a good number on it.
Reply

#4
Pet, if you would, please check your email. Have a question for you.

Thanks
Reply

#5
Thanks Pet.

How does the reef size (in sq km) at T-2, compare to Ant? Also, how does this thinking differ from the Elk-Ant field, in your opinion. I thought outside of ANT 1 & 2 reef, the ELK/ANT field was fractured was well?

Thanks!!
Reply

#6
My2- A quote from: Triceratops-Why the Resource Estimate should increase

“In May of 2011 they also said the closed structural area was at least 62 square miles. I do not have a good number for the area of the Antelope Field but I do not think it is more than 18 square miles (not including Elk). Arun Field is about 36 square miles.”

The 62 square miles mentioned above include all of the reef(s) and fractured carbonate. I have left out the Elk fractured carbonate area for the 18 square mile estimate for Antelope. So the big question is how much of the 62 square miles at Triceratops is reef and how much is fractured carbonate. They have indicated there are at least three buildups near T-2 that they believe are reefs. The area is not easy to come by because there are apparently some faults separating some of the buildups. Also it appears the gas column thickness will vary between the three buildups. I think the gas/water contact will be the same in all blocks but the top of the structure will be somewhat lower in the other two blocks i.e. they are drilling the highest of the three. The fractured limestone to the west of T-2 is massive and much higher than T-2. I do not have a good depth for the highest point on the carbonate shown at http://www.interoil.com/presentation/201..._Final.pdf chart 18 but it looks like it comes close to sea level. The top of the carbonate at T-2 is at 840 meters below sea level. Assuming a constant level for the gas/water contact, as shown on chart 18, the
thickness of the gas column at the highest point will be well over 4,000 feet. Are there any reefs West of T-2?

More to come shortly.
Reply

#7
Petreng, "the thickness of the gas column may be over 4000 ft." Are you saying the gas column(in areas above the gas water contact) could extend below the red line carbonate base or should the gas be confined to the depicted carbonate areas?
Reply

#8
The gas stays in the carbonate. The "vertical" distance from the highest point in the carbonate to the gas/water contact will be more than 4,000 feet. That is because the carbonate goes far up dip. To get the picture draw a vertical line from anywhere on the gas/water contact and then draw a horizontal line from the highest point of the carbonate to your vertical line. That intersecting point will be more than 4,000 feet above the gas/water contact.

Or use http://www.interoil.com/presentation/201..._Final.pdf chart 18. Draw a horizontal line from the highest point of the top of the carbonate to T-2. Where your horizontal line strikes T-2 will be more than 4,000 feet above the gas/water contact. The point is the elevation of the top of the carbonate will be more than 4,000 feet above the elevation of the gas/water contact. The gas/water contact is at at elevation of about -1,500 meters (4,922 feet)below sea level. Actually I think this picture shows it to be quite a bit more than 4,000 feet but I am using 4,000 feet to be on the conservative side.
Reply

#9
I should have said the height of the gas column instead of the thickness of the gas column.
Does that make more sense?
Reply

#10
Thanks for the clarification-----I will be more than happy with all pay zones even close to 2000'! Now if we could just get a little positive action on the political front
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)