What I think. FWIW

[efi426hemi]

Well, thanks for caring enough to share Sam.

Health & Happiness,

Hemi

[petrengr1]

I wonder what it would mean if Triceratops was connected to Bobcat and Bobcat was connected to E/A??  Of course that is 3-5 years out, wonder if some people have the patience to wait that long....

H&H,

Hemi

Before they renamed the Triceratops Field it was known as Bwata. At one time they showed a map which showed three prospects, Bwata, Bwata East and Bwata West. See http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documen...Final_.pdf page 23. I think Bwata and Bwata West is what they are now calling Triceratops. So there may be another high east of Triceratops in PRL 39. Then we have Bob Cat east of PRL 39, Jaguar east of Bob Cat and Elk southeast of Jaguar. Note that they are all on the north and northeast side of a major fault. http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documen..._FINAL.pdf chart 18.

I think Hemi was just having a  little fun here and, since I joined in above, I think maybe I should give a little clarification for anyone who is taking this a little too seriously. Sometimes we people who have a lot of money invested in IOC tend to be a little too optimistic. When I am guessing or speculating I usually try to let you know. (watch for those words) So I would not want some of you to say that Pet said Triceratops is connected to Antelope.

I can tell you now that Triceratops is NOT connected to Antelope. There is a large difference in the reservoir pressure between the two fields. There are probably many sealing faults between the two fields. GLJ doesn’t even think Elk is in pressure communication with Antelope.

This does not preclude us from finding gas accumulations at all of the prospects between Triceratops and Antelope i.e. Triceratops East, Bob Cat and Jaguar. They may be connected in the sense that they all “produce” from the same carbonate formation but they will probably all be separated by sealing faults, have different gas/water contacts and different reservoir pressure.

The basis for what I believe and write about here comes from what IOC presents from time to time. When they put out a map I believe what they present. If you don’t believe what they present you probably need to invest elsewhere. I do believe they are honest in what they present although they may also tend to be a bit too optimistic and, of course it is always possible that they could be wrong. Our new CEO has a PHD in geophysics, Dave Holland is a very sophisticated geologist in that he uses and understands all of the available tools. He has used air borne magnetic and gravity surveys, seismic surveys and even air borne gas “sniffers”. Wayne Andrews is also a geologist or geophysicist. I am not a geophysicist so I depend on what the experts present. That may be one of my many weaknesses.

[sageo]

I wonder what it would mean if Triceratops was connected to Bobcat and Bobcat was connected to E/A??  Of course that is 3-5 years out, wonder if some people have the patience to wait that long....

H&H,

Hemi

Before they renamed the Triceratops Field it was known as Bwata. At one time they showed a map which showed three prospects, Bwata, Bwata East and Bwata West. See http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documen...Final_.pdf page 23. I think Bwata and Bwata West is what they are now calling Triceratops. So there may be another high east of Triceratops in PRL 39. Then we have Bob Cat east of PRL 39, Jaguar east of Bob Cat and Elk southeast of Jaguar. Note that they are all on the north and northeast side of a major fault. http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documen..._FINAL.pdf chart 18.

I think Hemi was just having a  little fun here and, since I joined in above, I think maybe I should give a little clarification for anyone who is taking this a little too seriously. Sometimes we people who have a lot of money invested in IOC tend to be a little too optimistic. When I am guessing or speculating I usually try to let you know. (watch for those words) So I would not want some of you to say that Pet said Triceratops is connected to Antelope.

I can tell you now that Triceratops is NOT connected to Antelope. There is a large difference in the reservoir pressure between the two fields. There are probably many sealing faults between the two fields. GLJ doesn’t even think Elk is in pressure communication with Antelope.

This does not preclude us from finding gas accumulations at all of the prospects between Triceratops and Antelope i.e. Triceratops East, Bob Cat and Jaguar. They may be connected in the sense that they all “produce” from the same carbonate formation but they will probably all be separated by sealing faults, have different gas/water contacts and different reservoir pressure.

The basis for what I believe and write about here comes from what IOC presents from time to time. When they put out a map I believe what they present. If you don’t believe what they present you probably need to invest elsewhere. I do believe they are honest in what they present although they may also tend to be a bit too optimistic and, of course it is always possible that they could be wrong. Our new CEO has a PHD in geophysics, Dave Holland is a very sophisticated geologist in that he uses and understands all of the available tools. He has used air borne magnetic and gravity surveys, seismic surveys and even air borne gas “sniffers”. Wayne Andrews is also a geologist or geophysicist. I am not a geophysicist so I depend on what the experts present. That may be one of my many weaknesses.

Pet- Your two middle paragraphs use the "KISS" method for your explanation! Straight and to the point.Imo you are'right on'. Thanks (again!) for the fine post to help some of us to 'stay the course'!

[Spartina]

Great stuff Pet, thanks again for taking the time.

[Indoreservoir]

I wonder what it would mean if Triceratops was connected to Bobcat and Bobcat was connected to E/A??  Of course that is 3-5 years out, wonder if some people have the patience to wait that long....

H&H,

Hemi

Before they renamed the Triceratops Field it was known as Bwata. At one time they showed a map which showed three prospects, Bwata, Bwata East and Bwata West. See http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documen...Final_.pdf page 23. I think Bwata and Bwata West is what they are now calling Triceratops. So there may be another high east of Triceratops in PRL 39. Then we have Bob Cat east of PRL 39, Jaguar east of Bob Cat and Elk southeast of Jaguar. Note that they are all on the north and northeast side of a major fault. http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documen..._FINAL.pdf chart 18.

I think Hemi was just having a  little fun here and, since I joined in above, I think maybe I should give a little clarification for anyone who is taking this a little too seriously. Sometimes we people who have a lot of money invested in IOC tend to be a little too optimistic. When I am guessing or speculating I usually try to let you know. (watch for those words) So I would not want some of you to say that Pet said Triceratops is connected to Antelope.

I can tell you now that Triceratops is NOT connected to Antelope. There is a large difference in the reservoir pressure between the two fields. There are probably many sealing faults between the two fields. GLJ doesn’t even think Elk is in pressure communication with Antelope.

This does not preclude us from finding gas accumulations at all of the prospects between Triceratops and Antelope i.e. Triceratops East, Bob Cat and Jaguar. They may be connected in the sense that they all “produce” from the same carbonate formation but they will probably all be separated by sealing faults, have different gas/water contacts and different reservoir pressure.

The basis for what I believe and write about here comes from what IOC presents from time to time. When they put out a map I believe what they present. If you don’t believe what they present you probably need to invest elsewhere. I do believe they are honest in what they present although they may also tend to be a bit too optimistic and, of course it is always possible that they could be wrong. Our new CEO has a PHD in geophysics, Dave Holland is a very sophisticated geologist in that he uses and understands all of the available tools. He has used air borne magnetic and gravity surveys, seismic surveys and even air borne gas “sniffers”. Wayne Andrews is also a geologist or geophysicist. I am not a geophysicist so I depend on what the experts present. That may be one of my many weaknesses.

Petrengr1 and all

Pertinent to this discussion, attached you'll find Peter Rose's chapter from the AAPG Methods in Exploration No. 12.

I draw your attention to

1. Page 45 Figure 22 - average worldwide success rate over the past 4 decades of 24-27%

2. Page 45 Table 9 - USA success rates in the 1980s - new field wildcats in the 13-18% range

I'll note that many or most of these new wildcats are in established sedimentary basins, targeting known geologic formations which have discoveries or produce at wells nearby in the basin.

These conditions are similar to IOC in the Papuan Basin.

3. Page 47 section on "The Trouble with High-risk Exploration" quoting Shell, Amoco and Mobil experiencing <1% success rate on high-risk exploration (typically defined as outside established sedimentary basin exploration, or large stepouts.)

So, based on the worldwide E&P industry success rates, do we have any confidence or basis for believing 'this time its different?'

Having said that, its quite possible we'll have 2 or 3 successess (I sure hope so) - thats probability and mother nature.  (For example, when throwing a coin 50 times, you might expect to get 5-6-7 heads or tails in a row at some point - most people don't believe that but its a fact.)

Finally, I'll ask if anyone knows what Holland or IOC are carrying for POS?  I suspect its in the 20-40% range.  If we find out and I'm wrong, I'll buy any member of this board Heinekens or a beverage of your choice at Harrys Bar in Orchard Tower 2 in Singapore (when it reopens in a month or two.)

Until then, Cheers.

[trans]

I respect your knowledge, but ot compare this to the global average with the knowledge of the area is very naive imo., despite your knowledge in the SM general knowledge. May I  remind u that SM's tromped over this turf for many years...   This is like me compariing my overall knowledge in my area to investment opportunities. Iearned long ago not do that.  Same for Sam Adams, who things he has it figured out.  fwiw   trans

[SamAdams]

Give it up Trans.  You're cheap shots show your frusation and small mind.  I keep my points to the facts.  Not sure what you think I have figured out.  One thing is certain, none of us have this stock or company figured out.  Just stay on point and keep you personal issues for Yazoo.

[Putncalls]

I respect your knowledge, but ot compare this to the global average with the knowledge of the area is very naive imo., despite your knowledge in the SM general knowledge. May I  remind u that SM's tromped over this turf for many years...   This is like me compariing my overall knowledge in my area to investment opportunities. Iearned long ago not do that.  Same for Sam Adams, who things he has it figured out.  fwiw   trans

Trans,

When the SMs were "tromping around" PNG they were looking for oil. NG was an energy source to be flared.
LNG really didn't become a significant energy source until the early 90s. NG only became popular 20 years after(70s);
Shell left PNG, in the US because of a pipeline network and the OPEC oil embargo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_natural_gas


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_natural_gas

[Indoreservoir]

I wonder what it would mean if Triceratops was connected to Bobcat and Bobcat was connected to E/A??  Of course that is 3-5 years out, wonder if some people have the patience to wait that long....

H&H,

Hemi

Before they renamed the Triceratops Field it was known as Bwata. At one time they showed a map which showed three prospects, Bwata, Bwata East and Bwata West. See http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documen...Final_.pdf page 23. I think Bwata and Bwata West is what they are now calling Triceratops. So there may be another high east of Triceratops in PRL 39. Then we have Bob Cat east of PRL 39, Jaguar east of Bob Cat and Elk southeast of Jaguar. Note that they are all on the north and northeast side of a major fault. http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documen..._FINAL.pdf chart 18.

I think Hemi was just having a  little fun here and, since I joined in above, I think maybe I should give a little clarification for anyone who is taking this a little too seriously. Sometimes we people who have a lot of money invested in IOC tend to be a little too optimistic. When I am guessing or speculating I usually try to let you know. (watch for those words) So I would not want some of you to say that Pet said Triceratops is connected to Antelope.

I can tell you now that Triceratops is NOT connected to Antelope. There is a large difference in the reservoir pressure between the two fields. There are probably many sealing faults between the two fields. GLJ doesn’t even think Elk is in pressure communication with Antelope.

This does not preclude us from finding gas accumulations at all of the prospects between Triceratops and Antelope i.e. Triceratops East, Bob Cat and Jaguar. They may be connected in the sense that they all “produce” from the same carbonate formation but they will probably all be separated by sealing faults, have different gas/water contacts and different reservoir pressure.

The basis for what I believe and write about here comes from what IOC presents from time to time. When they put out a map I believe what they present. If you don’t believe what they present you probably need to invest elsewhere. I do believe they are honest in what they present although they may also tend to be a bit too optimistic and, of course it is always possible that they could be wrong. Our new CEO has a PHD in geophysics, Dave Holland is a very sophisticated geologist in that he uses and understands all of the available tools. He has used air borne magnetic and gravity surveys, seismic surveys and even air borne gas “sniffers”. Wayne Andrews is also a geologist or geophysicist. I am not a geophysicist so I depend on what the experts present. That may be one of my many weaknesses.

Petrengr1 and all

Pertinent to this discussion, attached you'll find Peter Rose's chapter from the AAPG Methods in Exploration No. 12.

I draw your attention to

1. Page 45 Figure 22 - average worldwide success rate over the past 4 decades of 24-27%

2. Page 45 Table 9 - USA success rates in the 1980s - new field wildcats in the 13-18% range

I'll note that many or most of these new wildcats are in established sedimentary basins, targeting known geologic formations which have discoveries or produce at wells nearby in the basin.

These conditions are similar to IOC in the Papuan Basin.

3. Page 47 section on "The Trouble with High-risk Exploration" quoting Shell, Amoco and Mobil experiencing <1% success rate on high-risk exploration (typically defined as outside established sedimentary basin exploration, or large stepouts.)

So, based on the worldwide E&P industry success rates, do we have any confidence or basis for believing 'this time its different?'

Having said that, its quite possible we'll have 2 or 3 successess (I sure hope so) - thats probability and mother nature.  (For example, when throwing a coin 50 times, you might expect to get 5-6-7 heads or tails in a row at some point - most people don't believe that but its a fact.)

Finally, I'll ask if anyone knows what Holland or IOC are carrying for POS?  I suspect its in the 20-40% range.  If we find out and I'm wrong, I'll buy any member of this board Heinekens or a beverage of your choice at Harrys Bar in Orchard Tower 2 in Singapore (when it reopens in a month or two.)

Until then, Cheers.

I need to add one more item.  Sorry if I appear to be talking down to folks, but some may not know this part of exploration economics.

In response to my low POS, the obvious question is: "why would anyone drill an exploration well which had a 70, 80 or 90% chance of failure?"

The answer is 'because the well has a 10, 20 or 30% chance of success."

In the success case, the risked or expected monetary value of the exploration is positive, and sometimes very strongly positive.

Expected monetary value or EMV?

its just the POS *  NPV

where NPV is the net present value of the development's cash flow stream in the success case using whatever discount rate you choose.

So companies know that any given exploration well is likely to fail, but when they succeed they pay for all the other exploration failures and then some.

Simple as that.

Hence companies often want to 'spread the risk' to participate in more wells.  You usually need to drill more than 1 well in a campaign to get the economics to work unless you're really lucky or good.

Hope this clarifies.

[Putncalls]

Indo;

You can't compare the 80s to the 21st century with respect to drilling or analytical technology. A CPU in the 80s might perform
15 Million instructions per second. Today there are 8 CPUs per chip performing 50 billion instructions per second. The drillers on top know exactly where that bit is and can hit a target five feet in diameter. These computers fit in a friggin laptop! This is just a small example as to what has happened in 30 years.