01-28-2012, 07:22 AM
This question comes along every time we drill and you probably already know what my answer to that question is but let me make a short story of a one word answer.
Back in August of 2009 someone asked a similar question about what to expect at Antelope-2. My answer may be found at: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Business_%26_Finance/Investments/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_I/threadview?bn=26290&tid=115901&mid=115998
I guess my first thoughts about Triceratops-2 (Formerly Bwata-2) were mentioned in Part II of this string back about one year ago: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_I/threadview?m=tm&bn=26290&tid=242164&mid=242164&tof=-1&rt=1&frt=2&off=1
So, what has happened in the last year to influence my thinking about Triceratops-2?
1. They have acquired more seismic data and concluded that Triceratops/Bwata is one large structure.
http://www.interoil.com/presentation/201..._Final.pdf charts 24 and 25.
2. Both the IOC and Knowledge Reservoir (3rd party) Geo-scientists have evaluated the data and, based on preliminary data, Knowledge Reservoir has estimated that in the “most likely case” the reservoir would contain 4.594 TCF of gas in place. Chart 25
3. Chart 26 suggests that Triceratops-2 (Formerly Bwata-2) is expected to be 1,500 feet higher than
Bwata-1which had a 512 foot gas column, meaning that Triceratops-2 is expected to have a 2012 foot gas column.
4. Chart 26 also suggests that “the seismic reflection character at Bwata is analogous to the Antelope reefal build up”.
5. Since the above estimate of gas was made by Knowledge Reservoir the Phase 3 seismic has been completed and evaluated. http://www.interoil.com/presentation/201..._Final.pdf charts 13, 14 and 15. On the conference call Phil and David Holland said the new data indicated the field was bigger and broader than previously thought. This would lead one to think the Knowledge Reservoir estimate is low since it was made prior to the acquisition latest seismic data.
My latest guess about the odds of making a dry hole at Triceratops-2 is once again zero. Of course I must remind you all of my guesstimates come from data provided by IOC. We will be drilling on a large “hump” thought to be a reef, 1500 feet higher than a known gas well. So it is not too big of a stretch to expect to make a gas well. Even if there is no reef (highly unlikely I think) then we should have +/- 2000 feet of fractured limestone which would contain gas. Even with that remote possibility we would have a very high volume gas well but the reserves would have to be reduced. I do not expect this last described worst-case scenario.
Yes, we did drill a dry hole at Triceratops-1, but I believe with the additional seismic data and the much higher structural location we will make a good gas well. The likelihood of drilling through 2000+ feet of reef or limestone without finding some porous rock or fractures seems quite remote to me.
I hope this make you sleep well this weekend.