ANT #4 elevation

[Putncalls]

I do admit that I'm looking for something that connects chandler, -25%YTD and Monday"s new data. I thought that the A4 1911 meter intersection was extremely positive! The market reaction has been the opposite. I know, It might be oil's fault.

[jft310]

The low estimate is the GCA estimate which we don't have a model for . GCA wanted two more wells drilled to increase their estimates and prove the field extended out as far as others thought .
Ant 4 proves the field in this direction extends out as far as others thought . The thickness here for GCA was not as issue because the field didn't extend out this far they thought thus the lower extimate . The Dec 3rd Laurie Brown slide 11 presention shows more assets and now we have proof the size in this direction is larger than GCA results . But will we see a GCA report??Who would pay for that report ?interoil will pay GLJ to do their report due out mid Feb to mid March .

[Putncalls]

IOC is releasing important pieces of the drilling data. We probably won't have to wait to long before we have a good idea about the volume and porosity of the reservoir. The LNG timeline is still the same, concept selection date appears firm, nice shot on the A4 reservoir intersection, a little concern on the western reservoir dip.
If WS needs the physical payment from Total I'll still be happy waiting in Costa Rica.

[ArtM72]

IOC is releasing important pieces of the drilling data. We probably won't have to wait to long before we have a good idea about the volume and porosity of the reservoir. The LNG timeline is still the same, concept selection date appears firm, nice shot on the A4 reservoir intersection, a little concern on the western reservoir dip. If WS needs the physical payment from Total I'll still be happy waiting in Costa Rica.

What...IOC is going to do something to help out its shareholders?  How good is your info?  Who's WS?

[Putncalls]

Wall Street likes to "see the money". IOC gave us the reservoir Depth at A4, shared a 3D graphic, announced A6, payment timetable, A5 testing strategy and there is a concept selection date set just after A5 testing. That is some sharing of info. They even mentioned 5 trains without any details.

[ArtM72]

Wall Street likes to "see the money". IOC gave us the reservoir Depth at A4, shared a 3D graphic, announced A6, payment timetable, A5 testing strategy and there is a concept selection date set just after A5 testing. That is some sharing of info. They even mentioned 5 trains without any details.

Mean porosity and depth to water table is all I ask 

[Putncalls]

If you have the top of the reservoir number you have the depth to water table number.

[petrengr1]

Sageo- I have no idea what I said about Antelope-2 in Aug. 2009 and apparently those old posts are no longer available. What we must remember is that we want to know the sub-sea depth so that all of the wells are based on the same datum and not confused by the unknown derrick elevation and/or actual drill depth.

I told you in my post of 12-9-2013 that they would find the top of the formation at Antelope-4 at about        -1,900 meters... http://preview.tinyurl.com/ojzklze

So today they told us that they found the top of the formation at 1911 meters sub-sea. When we draw a subsurface structure map we always use the sub-sea depths. If you look at the GLJ report http://tinyurl.com/lrjknkq page 36 of 51 you will see the GLJ interpretation of the Antelope structure and the sub-sea elevation of the top of the formation for each well.
Elk-4    -2,038.9  meters
Antelope-1   -1,550.3 meters
Antelope-2   -1,685.1 meters
Antelope-3   - not shown... Had not been drilled at that time.
Antelope 4   --1,919 meters ... From today’s presentation.
Gas/Water contact  -2,228 meters

So Antelope-4 is (1,919 -1,685) 234 meters or 768 feet lower than Antelope-2 and (2,228 - 1,919) 309 meters or 1,014 feet above the gas/water  contact.

Regarding today’s map http://tinyurl.com/n6ox33b page 11, yes, they have revised the map from what was previously shown as both the GLJ interpretation and the  IOC interpretation and yes, it does now  appear that they have the formation sloping down to the west instead of up to the  west. I have given you the depth of the gas/water contact above (-2,228 meters). The dark contour line is -2,000 meters. I don’t think I need to explain the implications of this change in the map. This map indicates that Antelope-5 will be lower than Antelope-2 instead of higher as I previously said based on the old maps. Antelope-5 will be higher than Antelope-4. Antelope-6 is also indicated to be higher than Antelope-4 based on the new map. I can not tell for sure but it appears that they might have moved the western boundary of the field a  little further to the west which would be a good thing if true.

They plan to do connectivity tests between Antelope-5 and the other appraisal wells. It is not clear to me if that means the appraisal wells in the current drilling program or all appraisal wells since the drilling of Antelope-1. If they intend to include Antelope-1, 2 and 3 they will have to do some work on those wells to expose the formation. If they intend to only use Antelope-4, 5 and 6 they can leave the formation exposed in those wells for the testing of Antelope-5.  There has been no previous connectivity testing done in the Antelope Field. Most of the wells were plugged off in some manner after completion of testing. Antelope-1 was an         exception as they left the very bottom, a very tight zone, open for a long term test that was never done. This zone would not be a very good one to use in a connectivity test. They will need to open the same part of the formation that is being tested in Antelope-5 if they want to show connectivity.

After comparing the old maps and the new map it now appears to me that they have not moved the western fault further to the west. It appears to be at the same  location.

Regarding the anticipated depth of the top of the formation Antelope-5 it appears that we can expect to find the top of the formation at about -1,785 meters sub-sea. The top of the formation at Antelope-6 is expected to be at about -1,850 meters sub-sea. These depths are based on the new map http://tinyurl.com/n6ox33b chart 11.


On the inter-connectivity testing between wells I now believe the test will include the old wells that have been previously drilled. They will have to open the formation in these wells but that can be done. Based on http://tinyurl.com/n6ox33b chart 13 the inter-connectivity testing will be completed by the end of the second Qtr. of 2015. Antelope-6 will not be completed by then so it will not be included in the test. Since they say will flow Antelope-5 and monitor for pressure responses in other wells (plural) they obviously intend to monitor the pressure response in more wells than just Antelope-4. So I now assume they will monitor all of the appraisal wells (Antelope-1, Antelope-2, Antelope-3 and Antelope-4) while they are flow testing Antelope-5. Elk-4, the discovery well, will not be monitored.

Before the certification process begins in the fourth Qtr. of 2015 the  certifying  companies will have the test data and they should have the results of the drilling of Antelope-6 which is to be completed by the end of the third Qtr.

[Putncalls]

Thank you pet.
I hope I didn't tread on anything. I looked at that GLJ map from DEC 2009 and it seemed that GLJ's map would indicate that the A5 top of formation should be a bit higher than -1.600 meters.

[petrengr1]

Thank you pet. I hope I didn't tread on anything. I looked at that GLJ map from DEC 2009 and it seemed that GLJ's map would indicate that the A5 top of formation should be a bit higher than -1.600 meters.

Yes, -1,600 meters looks about right on that map.