Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 2.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
PPL338 Joint Venture
#31

(05-16-2013, 07:00 AM)Palm Wrote:

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
Retention License over the Triceratops discovery
."

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.


I don’t think you have to prove there is gas in all of the blocks, just that you have a discovery in one of the blocks and there is some operational reason you want the other eight blocks. The blocks must be contiguous. They may give some leeway to include blocks that you have reason to believe may also be productive.

If you look at   http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documen...inal-1.pdf  page 21, you   could take the PRL 15 shape and flip it over it would fit right over Triceratop Field. It would cover the area from the west line of PPL 237 to the East line and be two blocks wide except for the northwestern most block. That is one possibility. I don’t think there is thought to be any prospects south of the major fault on the south side of Triceratops Field. I would rather they put three blocks where Pteranodon is and where the northwestern part of Triceratops is headed. That would leave one block that could be put on the east side where the pipeline to E/A  might be going to be.

After looking further it appears that they could put two blocks on the northwest side to cover the northwest end of Triceratops, run a row of block across the north line of PPL 237, drop south with three blocks and then east with the remaining blocks. That would cover all of Triceratops and would extend all the way to the Eastern boundary of PRL 15. So that would cover the north end of Raptor. We could say that area is needed for operational purposes for the roads and pipelines. This is my favorite layout of 9 blocks.

Regarding the possibility of having another dock on the river, any of the above arrangements would put us as close to the river as we can get and still be inside of PPL 237. I don’t know if the river is navigable that far up stream. I had always thought they would service Triceratops from Hou Creek and build a road and pipe line right-of-way from E/A to Triceratops.
Reply

#32
Very good; think that about nails it. Will be interesting to see if that is what we end up with
Reply

#33

Pet and Palm - Thanks (to all as well) for the great discussion concerning your "block party" ideas . I'm learning a lot ! Pet,you mentioned one idea that would include the northern portion of Raptor . To the best of your knowledge (or others who may know) , when was the last seismics (year) done on Raptor or Raptor/Duckbill and did it completely cover that prospect? TIA

Reply

#34

'sageo' pid='22538' datel Wrote:

Pet and Palm - Thanks (to all as well) for the great discussion concerning your "block party" ideas . I'm learning a lot ! Pet,you mentioned one idea that would include the northern portion of Raptor . To the best of your knowledge (or others who may know) , when was the last seismics (year) done on Raptor or Raptor/Duckbill and did it completely cover that prospect? TIA

Looks like they had some in 2007 and 2009. See http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documents/investorrelations/presentationanddocuments/2010/2010-06-22_AGM_Final_.pdf page 17. They may have other legacy data that we know nothing about. As far as what I can see I think they need more data before drilling. It may depend on how aggresive PRE wants to be. IOC got in a bit of trouble by drilling before they had sufficient seismic. I guess we will just have to watch and see what develops.

Reply

#35

'petrengr1' pid='22539' datel Wrote:

'sageo' pid='22538' datel Wrote:

Pet and Palm - Thanks (to all as well) for the great discussion concerning your "block party" ideas . I'm learning a lot ! Pet,you mentioned one idea that would include the northern portion of Raptor . To the best of your knowledge (or others who may know) , when was the last seismics (year) done on Raptor or Raptor/Duckbill and did it completely cover that prospect? TIA

Looks like they had some in 2007 and 2009. See http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documents/investorrelations/presentationanddocuments/2010/2010-06-22_AGM_Final_.pdf page 17. They may have other legacy data that we know nothing about. As far as what I can see I think they need more data before drilling. It may depend on how aggresive PRE wants to be. IOC got in a bit of trouble by drilling before they had sufficient seismic. I guess we will just have to watch and see what develops.

Thanks Pet. I made copy (enlarged) of page 17. Will save in my (growing) file folder to compare with future seismic on that prospect.I know I can't rush the seismic crews, but as soon as PRE & IOC can get them over there,Iwill have a big smile on my face!

Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)