Palm-
This slide is comparing the gross reservoir rock (not gas filled reservoir rock) of all of the Elk, Antelope, and Triceratops wells that IOC has drilled. (Does not include Bwata-1) More specifically they want to compare Triceratops-2 to Elk-4.(note shading) They are giving the top and bottom of the reservoir rock on the first two lines and the total thickness on the third line. The forth line is net reservoir where they only include that limestone which has more than 2% porosity and less than 10% clay content. (The Greek letter Phi is Engineering talk for porosity.) I think they used to use 3% porosity for the cut off for net pay but it appears they are now using 2%. The fifth line is a ratio of lines 3 and 4 or a net/gross or the percentage of the gross interval that is net pay. The bottom line is the average porosity of the net pay.
They want us to understand that Triceratops-2 is the equivalent to Elk-4 which is the first well drilled on the flank of the Antelope reef. I suggest you look and compare the following two charts:
Elk-4- http://www.interoil.com/presentation/200...m_comp.pdf chart 14
Triceratops-2 http://www.interoil.com/conference/2012-..._Final.pdf chart 17
Note that Elk-4 is on the flank of the Antelope reef and Triceratops-2 is on the flank of the Triceratops reef to the South of T-2. If they drill T-3 at the top of the reef to the South they will expect to see the top of the carbonate 650 feet higher than T-2 and we will hope for better porosity or a similar improvement as we saw between Elk-4 and Antelope-1,
The enormous attic that Phil refers to is the 16+ km of carbonate up dip to the West of T-2 which is gas on rock (i.e. no water contact in the upper part) in a carbonate interval of 1,800+ feet thick. We still do not have the west and northwest closure of the field identified. That will be part of the planned new additional seismic with PRE.
The additional new seismic will probably also include some close in lines around T-2 and the proposed T-3 in order to get a better understanding of the geology of the lower zone at T-2.
I told you that we do not have a clear understanding about the lower zone. Here is a quote from Dave Holland on the conference call from the Seeking Alpha transcript:
David John Holland - General Manager of Exploration and Production
Yes, no, I think at the moment that's what we are planning to review with the seismic mapping and focus the new seismic on. My current kind of view I guess, I did elaborate it a little bit, is I think that the aquifer pressure in the lower limestone would make it, I think, to be a closed system. So I'm thinking it's probably likely to be localized around the reef, I would think. That the major contact for the field, I still think, is the Bwata-1 water contract, which would be the contact that we have in all of the presentation material that we've provided today. But -- so I guess at the moment, that's what the new program will try and determine.
So he is saying that right now he thinks the lower zone is localized phenomenon around this T-2/T-3 reef but they need more seismic to determine the extent of this lower reservoir. It is hard for me to visualize a lower zone with a higher gas/water contact than the gas/water contact in the upper zone i.e. The Bwata-1 gas/water contact. Dave Holland said the Bwata-1 gas/water contact still applies to all of the main field to the west and northwest as shown on http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documen..._Final.pdf chart 19.
: