ANT #4 elevation

[vidon]

I seem to recall that Total and IOC will both engage new engineering firms to provide analysis and certification is to be the midpoint between these two new firms reports. They will not be using GCA nor GLJ. I wonder if others remember it this way???

[Stavros]

Vidon .... the below is from the SPA. They can use GCA, Ryder Scott, Beicip, Netherland Sewell or Miller and Lents.

Clause 3.3 a)
The Buyer must notify or must procure that the Operator notifies the Seller within five (5) Business Days of the completion of drilling (and testing) of the last appraisal well under the Appraisal Work Program. Promptly following such notification, the parties will procure the Interim Resource Certification in accordance with Schedule 4 and the Interim Resource Instruction.

Schedule 4 Part 6:
Within twenty (20) Business Days after any notice under clause 3.3(a) or clause 3.5(a) (such date in each case the "Trigger Date"), each of the Buyer and the Seller shall nominate an independent reputable international firm of valuers with expertise in the oil and gas industry and the capability to perform valuations on oil and gas reserves in Papua New Guinea ("Applicable Criteria") from amongst the following consultants: Gaffney, Cline & Associates, Ryder Scott, Beicip, Nederland Sewell & Associates, Inc. and Miller and Lents, Ltd., each company an "Expert".

[vidon]

Vidon .... the below is from the SPA. They can use GCA, Ryder Scott, Beicip, Netherland Sewell or Miller and Lents. Clause 3.3 a) The Buyer must notify or must procure that the Operator notifies the Seller within five (5) Business Days of the completion of drilling (and testing) of the last appraisal well under the Appraisal Work Program. Promptly following such notification, the parties will procure the Interim Resource Certification in accordance with Schedule 4 and the Interim Resource Instruction. Schedule 4 Part 6: Within twenty (20) Business Days after any notice under clause 3.3(a) or clause 3.5(a) (such date in each case the "Trigger Date", each of the Buyer and the Seller shall nominate an independent reputable international firm of valuers with expertise in the oil and gas industry and the capability to perform valuations on oil and gas reserves in Papua New Guinea ("Applicable Criteria" from amongst the following consultants: Gaffney, Cline & Associates, Ryder Scott, Beicip, Nederland Sewell & Associates, Inc. and Miller and Lents, Ltd., each company an "Expert".

hey Stavros, sorry I missed your answer as to acceptable values., just found it and so I am sending a belated THANKS.

[jft310]

Those are the 5 the banks lend against .

I hope they use Netherland Sewell which is whom OSH currently uses and whom has done early work on Elk Antelope.

It will be what it will be.

[ArtM72]

I had not recalled the 5 day notification clause. That puts into play a question whether the delay in locating and spudding A6 may be tied to a cash conservation move by Total. Hope they use a seriously powerful rig to push that A6 bit to FD.

BTW, when do we expect to hear the results of the Arb?

[jft310]

Arb they say by end of Mar . Last 2 weeks of Mar lots of news . Will also get the new GLJ numbers with end of year results . Drilling update required.
Should also see what Netherland Sewell sees at E/A for OSH. Different opinion .
Fun times ahead

[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. -1522 meters
Antelope 4   --1,919 meters ... From today’s presentation.
Antelope-5 -1,534 meters
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.

In my message (#28)  of  Jan. 14, 2015 I told you that IOC expected the top of the formation to come in at -1,785 meters sub sea based on their new map http://tinyurl.com/n6ox33b chart 11. Today’s PR indicates that they actually expected the top to be at -1,764 meters (1,534 +230). As I said this was a surprise because that made the well much lower than had  been indicated by previous maps such as IOC’s interpretation in the GLJ report of 2009 http://tinyurl.com/lrjknkq  page 37 of 51. So today they said they found the top at -1,534 meters sub sea which is right on with Dave Holland’s old GLJ map from 2009. Actually this is old information as we got the same thing from OSH back on Feb. 5, 2015. They were at a depth of -1,536 meters and running 9 5/8”  casing as of Jan. 31, 2015. So they have been running casing from Jan. 31st to Feb. 16th. We are now ready to drill into the reservoir at Antelope-5. This could explain why there has been no data from either Antelope-4 or 5. Neither well has drilled any reservoir rock yet.

So where does this put us? Yes, the reservoir will be 230 meters thicker than they expected based  on their Jan. 12th presentation http://tinyurl.com/n6ox33b  page 11 but it will be right back to the amount expected based on the  old GLJ report of 2009. So we have not gained anything we have just not lost anything. This new information makes Antelope-5 higher than any other well in the field, just as expected based on the old maps.

Correction: Antelope-3 (not shown on the old map) is the highest well in the field at -1,522 meters sub sea. Antelope-5 is at -1,534 meters.

[admin]

That is somewhat curious. The new methods were supposedly more accurate but it turns out the old ones were just fine, better actually.

[petrengr1]

That is somewhat curious. The new methods were supposedly more accurate but it turns out the old ones were just fine, better actually.

The old GLJ maps were pretty close on both Antelope-4 and 5.

[jft310]

The company states the purpose of the new drilling was to prove out the GLJ numbers or raise the GCA numbers . That's exactly what is happening . I was told many believe IOC will receive a number near the mid GLJ estimate without Ant Deep . Or a payment in the $2 billion range .
Phil thinks 12-15 T's or a higher payment with movement from 3c to 2 and 1 c . It's not bad news but good news .
Does a payment of this size indicate a buyout offer from others???