|
PET- Best guess on top of formation time
|
|
03-22-2014, 10:25 PM
Stavros, if I understand you you are saying that the tcf with "e" is the calculation to include the relative amount of condensates. This is why I am saying, why is OilSearch saying 5 tcf plus condensates, why don't they state the expected aggregate once the condensate is converted to tcf. This would compare apples to apples and say how much gas is actually there.
03-23-2014, 05:30 AM
The condensates are not converted to TCFs. They become part of the BOE calculation which actually boils down to mega joule, calories, BTUs or however you want to measure energy.
03-23-2014, 10:36 AM
In the defunct SPA between IOC and TOTAL, the condensate conversion to gas is defined on page 57 as below:
Schedule 6 Determination of Interim Resource Payment and Final Resource Payment Part 1 Definitions The meanings of the terms used in this Schedule 6 are set out below: “Barrel” means 42 U.S. gallons measured at 60 degrees Fahrenheit. “mcf” means one thousand (1,000) Standard Cubic Feet. “Standard Cubic Foot” means the amount of gaseous hydrocarbons which occupy one cubic foot at a pressure of 14.696 pounds per square inch absolute at a temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit and Standard Cubic Feet shall be construed accordingly. “Tcf” means one trillion (1,000,000,000,000) Standard Cubic Feet. The parties agree that Condensate shall be converted to Hydrocarbon Gas at a rate of one (1) million Barrels of Condensate is equal to six (6) billion Standard Cubic Feet of Hydrocarbon Gas (“Conversion Rate”).
Drivel Maven with Personality
03-23-2014, 11:21 AM
$$$$$$$....thanks!!
03-23-2014, 11:52 AM
"The parties agree that Condensate shall be converted to Hydrocarbon Gas at a rate of one (1) million Barrels of Condensate is equal to six (6) billion Standard Cubic Feet of Hydrocarbon Gas (“Conversion Rate”)."
Like I said it's an energy calculation. Keep in mind that liquids do not have much of a premium over methane in asia, unlike the US which currently has a NG glut. They have density though. I think we are talking about 22 barrels of liquid per 1 MMMCF?
03-23-2014, 12:03 PM
Puts ... you're twisting and turning words for no reason
Condensate is included in the defunct SPA with TOTAL Condensate is included in the deal between OSH and Pacific LNG If TOTAL or XOM take 35% net of PRL 15, they get 35% net of the condensates. OSH gets 17.65% net of the condensates based on their deal to acquire 22.8% gross of PRL 15. Condensate sells for anywhere from $10 per barrel less than crude to crude parity depending on the quality of the condensate. The PRL 15 condensate is high quality and should command close to oil parity IOC would use their portion of the condensate as feed to the refinery; maybe also process the partner's shares If it's determined that PRL 15 has 10 TCF of gas, then the condensate quantity is something on the order of 140 million barrels
Drivel Maven with Personality
Stavros, that was the original point to my comments. When people split hairs regarding among of tcf why is amount of condensate (significant revenue) added in!!!
03-24-2014, 06:20 AM
'jft310' pid='39594' datel Wrote:
All of the Antelope wells and Triceratops-2 took about 2 months from the spud date to reach the top of the pay zone. I expect these wells to take about the same amount of time. So we should be down to the limestone by about the first week of May at Wahoo-1 and Bobcat-1. We could hear about some gas kicks before that at Wahoo-1 if they encounter an over pressured gas filled clastic zone above the limestone.
03-24-2014, 06:44 AM
"If it's determined that PRL 15 has 10 TCF of gas, then the condensate quantity is something on the order of 140 million barrels"
I'm twisting words? 1 barrel of liquid per 71MCFs. Who cares about +/- 5% at this point?
03-24-2014, 06:49 AM
Why is IOC drilling three new wells if they Total SPA is "defunct"?
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

