Makes sense that can be done because in a situation like Tri/Bwata and Raptor/Duckbill there might only be enough "petroleum" for a project with both of them included. Pet, in your opinion do you think there has been enough work done to convince DPE that Raptor/Duckbill should be included in a PRL? I can see DPE wanting to to keep developers from locking up areas for longer without doing the work first, but it also saves time where enough work is done and gets things moving toward production. Would be interesting to know what all is included in the PRE JVOA as far as a work plan.
|
PPL338 Joint Venture
|
05-16-2013, 04:04 AM
Palm- If you look at http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documen...0Final.pdf Page 19 you can see the size of PRL 15. Raptor could have been included in PRL 15 but it is too late now since they are already in the sell down process. It looks like IOC wanted river access and then road access on both ends of PRL 15. Also covers part of the pipeline route.
I don't think we have enough information on Raptor to say it contains gas. It looks to be too far from Triceratops to be included with the proposed PRL there. I think our best hope for Raptor is for PRE to drill a well at Raptor, make a discovery, declare a location and apply for a stand alone PRL for Raptor. I don't know if IOC/PRE will run more seismic at Raptor before they drill Raptor-1 but if they are going to get it drilled this year they will have to hurry. If they start preparing a drilling site that will answer that question. It would be great to have applications in for PRL's at Triceratops, Raptor, Tuna and Wahoo but the last three will require a discovery first.
05-16-2013, 04:14 AM
'sageo' pid='22495' datel Wrote:
Sageo- The best I can do for you is http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documents/investorrelations/presentationanddocuments/2012/2012-06-15_AGM_Final-1.pdf Page 21.
Keep magnifying the map until you can read the names of Jaguar and Leopard East of Triceratops.
As you know these are the new gravity highs that Dave Holland keeps referring to as being on the carbonate reef trend between Triceratops and Elk/Antelope.
05-16-2013, 04:39 AM
'petrengr1' pid='22501' datel Wrote:Palm- If you look at http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documen...0Final.pdf Page 19 you can see the size of PRL 15. Raptor could have been included in PRL 15 but it is too late now since they are already in the sell down process. It looks like IOC wanted river access and then road access on both ends of PRL 15. Also covers part of the pipeline route. I don't think we have enough information on Raptor to say it contains gas. It looks to be too far from Triceratops to be included with the proposed PRL there. I think our best hope for Raptor is for PRE to drill a well at Raptor, make a discovery, declare a location and apply for a stand alone PRL for Raptor. I don't know if IOC/PRE will run more seismic at Raptor before they drill Raptor-1 but if they are going to get it drilled this year they will have to hurry. If they start preparing a drilling site that will answer that question. It would be great to have applications in for PRL's at Triceratops, Raptor, Tuna and Wahoo but the last three will require a discovery first. If we laid out graticular blocks side beside from West to East at Triceratops we would only need about 7 blocks to cover Triceratops, Jaguar and Leopard. Two blocks left over for north and northwest of the presently shown Triceratops. 
05-16-2013, 05:37 AM
My only question with that is that Jaguar and Leopard are all or mostly in PPL 238. Those maps I believe are mis-marked by showing "237" there, but past maps show the area they are in as 238. For instance, look at the coloring on Page 18 here:
http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documen...tation.pdf The problem would be that the MDA states that the PRL applied for is "over" the Triceratops filed and includes PRE (I beleive) on that PRL application. If Jaguar and Leopard were to be included, I would think PRE would have to be added to the PPL 238 license. Maybe not, but seems like that would have to be the case.
05-16-2013, 05:55 AM
Yes, I think you are right. I was just trying to see how many prospects we could cover with 9 blocks. PRL 15 was taken from both PPL 237 and PPL 238 but I believe the interest in both Licenses were the same at the time.
Since the interests are different now it is probably more likely the the PRL for Triceratops just covers all of the Triceratops Field and maybe the additional area west of Triceratops to include the new prospects included in the recent PRE presentation.
05-16-2013, 07:00 AM
Agree, but if Raptor is not to point of being able to convince DPE that it is worthy of being included in a PRL, these west prospects likely wouldn't be either. This would support the language in the MD&A which states:
"On January 24, 2013, the DPE approved and registered the transfer of interest in PPL 237 to PRE and the related PRE JVOA. During the quarter, an application was submitted for a Petroleum In looking at PRL 15 it almost appears they shaped it as they did to be able to have access to the Hou and other offload area on the Purari. It appears the Purari comes close enough to the Tri field to construct another offload area, so they might get away with less blocks. If they end up piping product to EA to then the CSPs as they have shown on other slides, a PRL just "covering" Tri could be all they need.
05-16-2013, 08:27 AM
'petrengr1' pid='22502' datel Wrote: Thanks ,Pet --A big help . ( Aside...... just saw the news about Paulson's big buy-in ! )
05-16-2013, 09:23 AM
PRL 15 has prospects not yet drilled included, although they may have some seismic for them. Therefore, perhaps one or more prospects can also be included in the Triceratops PRL, especially if they do not need all the normal blocks for Triceratops per se.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)