What I think. FWIW

[Indoreservoir]

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.

Putncalls,

Unfortunately, the major change in exploration technology is 3D seismic and processing methods, and we don't have 3D.

The success rates in 2014 based on 2D will be no or only marginally better than those in the 1980s, unfortunately.

Agree the drillers can hit the target, but the G&G folks have to pick the right place  (if the 'right place' exists.)

Cheers

[ArtM72]

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.

Putncalls,

Unfortunately, the major change in exploration technology is 3D seismic and processing methods, and we don't have 3D.

The success rates in 2014 based on 2D will be no or only marginally better than those in the 1980s, unfortunately.

Agree the drillers can hit the target, but the G&G folks have to pick the right place  (if the 'right place' exists.)

Cheers

For one, I certainly haven't seen much in the way of improvement in my 2D monitors or graphics engines since 1980.  Ever since Princeton came out with that neet amber screen things have been good.  I hated that green.  My wife though keeps telling me that my dot matrix printer is getting a little long in the tooth.  Still lots of value there.

[Thylacine-2]

> 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.<

Nope, Indoreservoir, those conditions are not at all similar to those in which IOC is operating. In IOC's very unusual conditions, the number crunching you are doing serves more to obscure than illuminate.

[Indoreservoir]

> 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.< Nope, Indoreservoir, those conditions are not at all similar to those in which IOC is operating. In IOC's very unusual conditions, the number crunching you are doing serves more to obscure than illuminate.

Thylacine

Why is the Papuan Basin different than any other oil and gas basin in the world in terms of the mechanics and processes of oil and gas formation, migration, and trapping?

What 'unusual conditions' are at work which makes IOCs acreage not obey what has been observed in every other sedimentary basin?

Why is it 'different this time?'

Please advise and provide some supporting evidence, and while you're at it, please explain dry holes E2, T1, and those other dry holes including Moose 1 and Moose 2,  Puri 1 ST, Ipigo 1, Kariava 1, Rarako Creek 1, Sterling Mustang-1 - hard to read them off the WoodMac Map. Probably not all these wells are IOCs, but they are in the area though not sure they targeted the Miocene carbonates.

Maybe these had a little bit of oil or gas, but that does not make them successes.  

But I think this may be where I differ with many on the board - its how we define success.

And thats my last comment on this POS thing as I think its best to agree to disagree.  By the time we finish arguing, we'll have some well results in hand, and I hope they're damn positive.

Am willing to discuss it further, but best whoever wants to should PM me.

Cheers,

[Thylacine-2]

Indo, it's not a matter of the mechanics and processes of oil and gas formation being different. It's a matter of different kinds of targets. We aren't shooting at subtle highs in well explored basins where 3d gives such a great advantage. We are shooting at big reefs. Our situation is more like Texas in the 30s when we were shooting elephants. Or more like the situation in Kurdistan a few years ago.

E2 was a delineation well. Pet could shed more light on the other wells you mention, if he has the inclination to get into what I think is a pretty meaningless discussion, :-), but I don't think any of those other wells were drilled into a big reefal structure like those we are targeting in the planned drilling program. We got lucky with Elk-1. And our understanding of the geology on our licenses has advanced tremendously since then.

More significant than the kind of statistics you use is the common sense fact that all (100%) of the reefs we have drilled so far...Elk, Antelope, and Triceratops, have been good. And that the people that understand the situation best, Dave Holland and the experts MH has brought in, have selected our current targets.

[geologydude]

Indo, it's not a matter of the mechanics and processes of oil and gas formation being different. It's a matter of different kinds of targets. We aren't shooting at subtle highs in well explored basins where 3d gives such a great advantage. We are shooting at big reefs. Our situation is more like Texas in the 30s when we were shooting elephants. Or more like the situation in Kurdistan a few years ago. E2 was a delineation well. Pet could shed more light on the other wells you mention, if he has the inclination to get into what I think is a pretty meaningless discussion, :-), but I don't think any of those other wells were drilled into a big reefal structure like those we are targeting in the planned drilling program. We got lucky with Elk-1. And our understanding of the geology on our licenses has advanced tremendously since then. More significant than the kind of statistics you use is the common sense fact that all (100%) of the reefs we have drilled so far...Elk, Antelope, and Triceratops, have been good. And that the people that understand the situation best, Dave Holland and the experts MH has brought in, have selected our current targets.

Yours is the voice of reason here Thy.  I agree whole heartedly.  I would be surprised and disappointed if all of these wells don't prove up more gas.  Overly optimistic...I don't think so.  Holland and company have learned a great deal in the past decade.  When you know what you are looking for on seismic, it is not so difficult to interpret HC containing structures accurately.  We can't discount the experience and lesson learned here.

[admin]

Well, we'll see soon enough, although three exploration wells is too small a population to settle this statistical debate one way or another in any definite fashion, it will be pretty indicative. And much more important, there is ample opportunity to expand IOC's resource base.

Minor correction, Elk is not a reef.

[sageo]

Indo, it's not a matter of the mechanics and processes of oil and gas formation being different. It's a matter of different kinds of targets. We aren't shooting at subtle highs in well explored basins where 3d gives such a great advantage. We are shooting at big reefs. Our situation is more like Texas in the 30s when we were shooting elephants. Or more like the situation in Kurdistan a few years ago. E2 was a delineation well. Pet could shed more light on the other wells you mention, if he has the inclination to get into what I think is a pretty meaningless discussion, :-), but I don't think any of those other wells were drilled into a big reefal structure like those we are targeting in the planned drilling program. We got lucky with Elk-1. And our understanding of the geology on our licenses has advanced tremendously since then. More significant than the kind of statistics you use is the common sense fact that all (100%) of the reefs we have drilled so far...Elk, Antelope, and Triceratops, have been good. And that the people that understand the situation best, Dave Holland and the experts MH has brought in, have selected our current targets.

Yours is the voice of reason here Thy.  I agree whole heartedly.  I would be surprised and disappointed if all of these wells don't prove up more gas.  Overly optimistic...I don't think so.  Holland and company have learned a great deal in the past decade.  When you know what you are looking for on seismic, it is not so difficult to interpret HC containing structures accurately.  We can't discount the experience and lesson learned here.

'geodude' -From one geo to another......I agree with your post ....(it is also mho!) GLTY.

[jft310]

A very knowledgable person who has all the data says think
of fingers , hold your hand sideways . These are the deposits over
100's of millions if years . Deposit after deposit .
This person seeing all the seismics data not part of the data but all of it
states they believe all the current structures
communicate . Hemi heard same and has posted such.
If true helps explain the second certification IOC asked for.
This is their belief and has not been proven correct yet.
Interesting I think

[Thylacine-2]

A very knowledgable person who has all the data says think of fingers , hold your hand sideways . These are the deposits over 100's of millions if years . Deposit after deposit . This person seeing all the seismics data not part of the data but all of it states they believe all the current structures communicate . Hemi heard same and has posted such. If true helps explain the second certification IOC asked for. This is their belief and has not been proven correct yet. Interesting I think

Well, they couldn't have been talking about the gas in the various fields, or potential fields, being in communication in the technical sense, in the sense that the gas bearing formations are in physical contact,i.e., that the various fields will turn out to be all one big field. (With the same gas/water contact for one thing.)

The knowledgable person might have been referring to the various structures being all one big structure (now separated by faults and different amounts of uplifting) sharing the same geology, hydrocarbon kitchens, sealing shale layers, hydrocarbon bearing formations, etc.  That's a bullish interpretation and what we are all hoping for, or expecting.  If that's the case, a Bobcat is a Jaguar is an Antelope, is a.....