'Indoreservoir' pid='74961' dateline='<a href="tel:1469586 Wrote:
'petrengr1' pid='74960' dateline='<a href="tel:1469585 Wrote:
'Stavros' pid='74958' dateline='<a href="tel:1469584 Wrote:XOM will always get the full suite of payments from TOTAL over the years by acquiring IOC. We are requesting XOM to be "fair" and share those payments with us. So saying it costs XOM nothing to share those future payments with us is not correct.The payments they will share with us are far into the future. They will have value when paid but the NPV to Exxon is very low. As was mentioned by Phil several times.
a comment on RF, - if GLJ used 87% for C2 like they did in 2009, that is a very likely reason for the major difference between GCA/NSAI and GLJ. Most appraisers would use a 50-70% RF for C2 or P2 in an unknown, low k reservoir.
Water drive in a low k carbonate could be bad, and if they assumed that it would push the RF to a lower number - 50%?. With fractures and water you must worry - Beaer River Field in Canada is a case in point.
But I should also note that both GCA and NSAI C3 numbers were not large (<8 TCF), which suggests factors (porosity cutoff, water saturation, mapping) other than just recovery factor are also at play in their smaller C2 numbers.
As mentioned before OSH may have given conservative maps to the certifiers and asked those to be verfied as not contradicting data, thus ensuring the certification could get done in a 90-day work period (as the TOT SPA requires, not sure about Civelli's-OSH SPA)
If I had a small RF for my C2 number, to ensure that my C3 number captured 90% of the potential outcomes I would sure increase that RF to the 80 or 90% level, because after all there ARE high RF carbonates in the region - Arun and the other North Sumatra carbonates (NSO A offshore, SLS A and B) among others.