Orchestrated Pumping this weekend by someone wanting to unload

[petrengr1]

I believe the conductivity issue is spelled out in the SPA.

You are correct. It is in Annex 2 of the SPA of 3/26/14 (on page 71):

"Any petroleum encountered in future wells on the Antelope Field or its lateral components that is in Pressure Communication with petroleum in the Antelope-I, Antelope-2, Antelope-3 or Elk-4 wells
will also be considered part of the Antelope Field. Any petroleum encountered outside the Antelope Field but in Pressure Communication with wells that are part of the Antelope Field will also be
considered part ofthe Antelope Field.
Pressure Communication means with respect to any accumulation of petroleum, that:
(a) such an accumulation has petroleum bearing sediments which are in direct and continuous petroleum contact with the Elk Field or Antelope Field as necessary;
(b) such an accumulation belongs to the same petroleum pressure regime as the Elk Field or Antelope Field with which it is in such direct and continuous petroleum contact;
and
© the composition of the petroleum of such accumulation is consistent with the composition of the petroleum of the Elk Field or Antelope Field, as applicable, with
which it is in such direct and continuous petroleum contact. "

I leave it to others more knowlegable in pressure testing, like Pet or others, to explain exactly how the current testing regime will compute with these 'pressure communication' definitions in the SPA.

2126- This wording in the SPA about pressure communication really has nothing to do with what we are now doing in the Antelope Field. The testing we are now doing is just to confirm that all of the field is one large “connected” gas field where all of the parts can be drained by the existing wells or any other wells drilled in the “recognized” Antelope Field.

What the SPA clause was for is if we could prove that some other area or prospect that is currently not recognized as being a part of the Elk/Antelope Fields was in pressure communication with the Elk/Antelope Fields then it could be considered a part of the Elk/Antelope Fields and could be included in the resource volume to be paid for by Total.

I don’t think Antelope South ever had a chance to qualify as being in pressure communication with Antelope but I still think there is a possibility that Mule Deer could be in pressure communication with the Elk Field. I do not know of any other possibility.

All of the Wells drilled in the Antelope Field are part of the Antelope Field and will be included in the resource payment no matter how the interference test turns out.

I hope that helps.

[Palm]

Agree Pet; whole different set of circumstances. At this point it really looks like EA is on its own as far as the main "pay scale" for certification isn't it? Any remote chance Raptor could be in pressure communication with EA? Seems like every time they show an updated map Raptor appears to possibly extend further into PRL15. Not that concerned as EA looks to be a 10T+ reservoir as they gather more data.

[Li'loilady]

Pet – Thanks for clearing that up.  That was helpful.

Another clarifying question:  It's regarding your statement,  "The testing we are now doing is just to confirm that all of the field is one large “connected” gas field."  If current testing does indicate that Antelope is one large connected gasfield, that fact alone would increase our certification  resource estimate, correct?  (All other things being equal, of course.)

I know this matter has been mentioned somewhat obliquely by others but, I don't recall reading an authoritative "yes" or "no" on it.

[jft310]

Others know more but the main resource size increases must come from extending the model out in distance from the current model or more resource rock and higher quality rock or more dolomite rock . Which is exactly what Ant 5 proved and why mgt was giddy with those results .
We should be very curious what size plant we decide to build both the number of trains and the size of the trains . GLJ assumed all the wells at their time of report were connected . GLJ if doing another report would have to model in Ant 5 results . Hession called this a significant increase undefined today to us at least from GCA and GLJ estimates.

[petrengr1]

Agree Pet; whole different set of circumstances. At this point it really looks like EA is on its own as far as the main "pay scale" for certification isn't it? Any remote chance Raptor could be in pressure communication with EA? Seems like every time they show an updated map Raptor appears to possibly extend further into PRL15. Not that concerned as EA looks to be a 10T+ reservoir as they gather more data.

Palm- The field discovered by by Raptor-1 can not possibly be in pressure communication with Antelope because they discovered gas far below the gas/water contact at Antelope.

[petrengr1]

Pet – Thanks for clearing that up.  That was helpful.

Another clarifying question:  It's regarding your statement,  "The testing we are now doing is just to confirm that all of the field is one large “connected” gas field."  If current testing does indicate that Antelope is one large connected gasfield, that fact alone would increase our certification  resource estimate, correct?  (All other things being equal, of course.)

I know this matter has been mentioned somewhat obliquely by others but, I don't recall reading an authoritative "yes" or "no" on it.

Li'loilady - Here is a paragraph from my post of April 30th:

"The connectivity test may increase the resource volume by allowing the reservoir engineers to increase their  “continuity uncertainty factor” from the 0.80 that GLJ used in their original work."

GLJ has issued several updates since their original work so I do not know what “continuity uncertainty factor” they are now using. If they are still at 80% then removing all uncertainty could increase their number by 20%.

[2126]

Thanks again, Pet, for your clear explanation.

[Getitrt2]

Pet – Thanks for clearing that up.  That was helpful.

Another clarifying question:  It's regarding your statement,  "The testing we are now doing is just to confirm that all of the field is one large “connected” gas field."  If current testing does indicate that Antelope is one large connected gasfield, that fact alone would increase our certification  resource estimate, correct?  (All other things being equal, of course.)

I know this matter has been mentioned somewhat obliquely by others but, I don't recall reading an authoritative "yes" or "no" on it.

Li'loilady - Here is a paragraph from my post of April 30th:

"The connectivity test may increase the resource volume by allowing the reservoir engineers to increase their  “continuity uncertainty factor” from the 0.80 that GLJ used in their original work."

GLJ has issued several updates since their original work so I do not know what “continuity uncertainty factor” they are now using. If they are still at 80% then removing all uncertainty could increase their number by 20%.

GLJ "removing all uncertainty", i.e. going to 100%, would increase that factor by 20 percentage points, but I think it could "increase their number", or increase their resource estimate, by 25%, as a matter of math!

[jft310]

So the interesting question is which factor increases the estimates the most . The larger field , the additional dolomite or the 100 percent proven connectivity . Doesn't really matter . Will these 3 factors get us to Henry Aldorf's spoken estimate at least 12 T's . That matters.

[Li'loilady]

Pet – Thanks for clearing that up.  That was helpful.

Another clarifying question:  It's regarding your statement,  "The testing we are now doing is just to confirm that all of the field is one large “connected” gas field."  If current testing does indicate that Antelope is one large connected gasfield, that fact alone would increase our certification  resource estimate, correct?  (All other things being equal, of course.)

I know this matter has been mentioned somewhat obliquely by others but, I don't recall reading an authoritative "yes" or "no" on it.

Li'loilady - Here is a paragraph from my post of April 30th:

"The connectivity test may increase the resource volume by allowing the reservoir engineers to increase their  “continuity uncertainty factor” from the 0.80 that GLJ used in their original work."

GLJ has issued several updates since their original work so I do not know what “continuity uncertainty factor” they are now using. If they are still at 80% then removing all uncertainty could increase their number by 20%.

GLJ "removing all uncertainty", i.e. going to 100%, would increase that factor by 20 percentage points, but I think it could "increase their number", or increase their resource estimate, by 25%, as a matter of math!

Thanks Pet and Getit.  Apparently I forgot to deposit your original post into my memory's bank.  Thanks for the reminder and for your patience.