Successful flow test for triceratops

[Optionray]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/successful...00300.html

Also some news about Antelope 4 hitting the reservoir 118 feet higher.

With the sidetrack headed south, anyway to figure out the distance to the south where the intesection occured? It would be interesting to somehow compare the slope presented on page 6 of the last presentation to the current penetration.

Ray- Good am .When I reviewed page 6 originally,I was giving so much attention to the westward concerns that  I sort'a overlooked the rise in the SE corner of the map . It now appears that the seismics and the interpretation thereof were "spot on". Man, 118 ft higher than the original Ant 4 is very encouaging .I believe Pet will have some more (ever) enlightening comments on this latest information when he has the time . Best to you .

Spot on!  Looks like you are seeing the same thing I see, very encouraging.  Thanks for the reply.

[jft310]

Talk about 9.5 T's from Calio for Monday . Could be an interesting Monday

[Stavros]

Where do you get 9.5 T's JFT?

GLJ's "mid estimate" was 9.9 tcfe before all the additional wells were drilled and before the recent outstanding well test data.
Indications are that the GLJ "mid estimate" will be exceeded when the certification experts have done their work.

[Stavros]

That is 17.1 MILLION, i.e. 17.1 MMcfd, not mcfd, and it is a "flow constrained by tubing" which I do not think is comparable to the 705MMcfd. Maybe I am or was missing something, but I think the Ant 4 side track is significantly to the south, and that intersecting the reservoir (indicated before as all dolomite) 118 feet higher than the original well is extremely positive and further increases the resource, perhaps significantly. Their disclosure here indicates they think it is material. The main diagram on slide 6 showed the resource sloping down to the south, although in the insert I see indication of a yellow/higher section to the south, which I guess is what Sageo is referring to. I look forward to further information and Pet's comments. We may not add much from Ant 6, but we'll probably know and understand a lot more about the formation, and who knows? It appears to me we are adding a lot more to the resource from Ant 4 than anyone expected!

Antelope-1 383 million standard cubic feet per day; 6 inch choke; open to 3 1/2 inch

Antelope-2 705 million scfd; 6 inch choke; open to 4 3/8 inch

Triceratops-3 17.1 million scfd; choke size not given; open to 1 1/8 inch

[sydbod]

Forget it ........ I am half asleep. ... sorry. LOL

[sageo]

That is 17.1 MILLION, i.e. 17.1 MMcfd, not mcfd, and it is a "flow constrained by tubing" which I do not think is comparable to the 705MMcfd. Maybe I am or was missing something, but I think the Ant 4 side track is significantly to the south, and that intersecting the reservoir (indicated before as all dolomite) 118 feet higher than the original well is extremely positive and further increases the resource, perhaps significantly. Their disclosure here indicates they think it is material. The main diagram on slide 6 showed the resource sloping down to the south, although in the insert I see indication of a yellow/higher section to the south, which I guess is what Sageo is referring to. I look forward to further information and Pet's comments. We may not add much from Ant 6, but we'll probably know and understand a lot more about the formation, and who knows? It appears to me we are adding a lot more to the resource from Ant 4 than anyone expected!

Antelope-1 383 million standard cubic feet per day; 6 inch choke; open to 3 1/2 inch

Antelope-2 705 million scfd; 6 inch choke; open to 4 3/8 inch

Triceratops-3 17.1 million scfd; choke size not given; open to 1 1/8 inch

You got it !!!  Also,on 6-24-14 flow test on Ant#3 showed 46 million cfgd thru drill stem pipe ...could not find choke size. On Ant 2  ....4 3/8 opening is much greater than what we did at Tri #3 with the tubing. Tri looking better and better. Thanks Stavros and Getit .

[calvin grad]

What is the significance of the 200 barrels of condensate? Does this indicate a higher or lower percentage of condensate than EA?

[Stavros]

As Petrengr1 elaborated in his post, 200 barrels per day of condensate is lower than in Tri-2 and lower than E/A.

[bdahl385]

As Petrengr1 elaborated in his post, 200 barrels per day of condensate is lower than in Tri-2 and lower than E/A.

Tri - 3 was drilled "up-dip" from the other Tri wells, into some of that attic that was so prominately mentioned by PM all those years ago.  Simple laws of physics dictate that the condensate/gas ratio will diminish as you get vertically higher in the reservoir.  Said another way, the best condensate / gas ratio is at the transistion zone near the GWC (this is also the area where oil would appear if there were to be any)...

[sageo]

As Petrengr1 elaborated in his post, 200 barrels per day of condensate is lower than in Tri-2 and lower than E/A.

Tri - 3 was drilled "up-dip" from the other Tri wells, into some of that attic that was so prominately mentioned by PM all those years ago.  Simple laws of physics dictate that the condensate/gas ratio will diminish as you get vertically higher in the reservoir.  Said another way, the best condensate / gas ratio is at the transistion zone near the GWC (this is also the area where oil would appear if there were to be any)...

 Bdahl - Appreciate your post .It has been my position ever since Raptor #1 was drilled,that when we drill Rap #2 (and #3 ) we will have a greater condensate ratio to gas as we go deeper. If oil is there above the water contact (between the gas and water) so much the better. [ ....as Phil once said " there is oil down there somewhere" or words to that effect ]. Best to you .