ANT #4 elevation

[Tree]

That is somewhat curious. The new methods were supposedly more accurate but it turns out the old ones were just fine, better actually.

The old GLJ maps were pretty close on both Antelope-4 and 5.

Importance is this.  Doesn't matter what you say the top is when no one will pay you for it upfront.

 IOC/GLJ estimate was not saleable. Best deal possible was 5.5T accepted by all with upside compensation paid by Total. Proving out GLJ+ through recert validates IOCs modeling and proves the genius of Hession for extracting upside bonus. Big gain today for IOC with this news.

[admin]

Importance is this.  Doesn't matter what you say the top is when no one will pay you for it upfront.

 IOC/GLJ estimate was not saleable. Best deal possible was 5.5T accepted by all with upside compensation paid by Total. Proving out GLJ+ through recert validates IOCs modeling and proves the genius of Hession for extracting upside bonus. Big gain today for IOC with this news.

I can live with that

[Getitrt2]

Was better accuracy previously from old methods and data because of Dave Holland, or did he do the latest height/depth estimates also?

[jft310]

And Hession will get us paid for T's above not connected in E/A in PRL- 15 and a second certification after this certification . Or take the standard deal get paid one time with no upside or take unlimited upside . Been a tough wait it's fair to say .

[petrengr1]

Sageo- I have no idea what I said about Antelope-2 in Aug. 2009 and apparently those old posts are no longer available. What we must remember is that we want to know the sub-sea depth so that all of the wells are based on the same datum and not confused by the unknown derrick elevation and/or actual drill depth.

I told you in my post of 12-9-2013 that they would find the top of the formation at Antelope-4 at about        -1,900 meters... http://preview.tinyurl.com/ojzklze

So today they told us that they found the top of the formation at 1911 meters sub-sea. When we draw a subsurface structure map we always use the sub-sea depths. If you look at the GLJ report http://tinyurl.com/lrjknkq page 36 of 51 you will see the GLJ interpretation of the Antelope structure and the sub-sea elevation of the top of the formation for each well.
Elk-4    -2,038.9  meters
Antelope-1   -1,550.3 meters
Antelope-2   -1,685.1 meters
Antelope-3   - not shown... Had not been drilled at that time. -1522 meters
Antelope 4   --1,919 meters ... From today’s presentation.
Antelope-5 -1,534 meters Gas/Water contact  -2,228 meters

So Antelope-4 is (1,919 -1,685) 234 meters or 768 feet lower than Antelope-2 and (2,228 - 1,919) 309 meters or 1,014 feet above the gas/water  contact.

Regarding today’s map http://tinyurl.com/n6ox33b page 11, yes, they have revised the map from what was previously shown as both the GLJ interpretation and the  IOC interpretation and yes, it does now  appear that they have the formation sloping down to the west instead of up to the  west. I have given you the depth of the gas/water contact above (-2,228 meters). The dark contour line is -2,000 meters. I don’t think I need to explain the implications of this change in the map. This map indicates that Antelope-5 will be lower than Antelope-2 instead of higher as I previously said based on the old maps. Antelope-5 will be higher than Antelope-4. Antelope-6 is also indicated to be higher than Antelope-4 based on the new map. I can not tell for sure but it appears that they might have moved the western boundary of the field a  little further to the west which would be a good thing if true.

They plan to do connectivity tests between Antelope-5 and the other appraisal wells. It is not clear to me if that means the appraisal wells in the current drilling program or all appraisal wells since the drilling of Antelope-1. If they intend to include Antelope-1, 2 and 3 they will have to do some work on those wells to expose the formation. If they intend to only use Antelope-4, 5 and 6 they can leave the formation exposed in those wells for the testing of Antelope-5.  There has been no previous connectivity testing done in the Antelope Field. Most of the wells were plugged off in some manner after completion of testing. Antelope-1 was an         exception as they left the very bottom, a very tight zone, open for a long term test that was never done. This zone would not be a very good one to use in a connectivity test. They will need to open the same part of the formation that is being tested in Antelope-5 if they want to show connectivity.

After comparing the old maps and the new map it now appears to me that they have not moved the western fault further to the west. It appears to be at the same  location.

Regarding the anticipated depth of the top of the formation Antelope-5 it appears that we can expect to find the top of the formation at about -1,785 meters sub-sea. The top of the formation at Antelope-6 is expected to be at about -1,850 meters sub-sea. These depths are based on the new map http://tinyurl.com/n6ox33b chart 11.


On the inter-connectivity testing between wells I now believe the test will include the old wells that have been previously drilled. They will have to open the formation in these wells but that can be done. Based on http://tinyurl.com/n6ox33b chart 13 the inter-connectivity testing will be completed by the end of the second Qtr. of 2015. Antelope-6 will not be completed by then so it will not be included in the test. Since they say will flow Antelope-5 and monitor for pressure responses in other wells (plural) they obviously intend to monitor the pressure response in more wells than just Antelope-4. So I now assume they will monitor all of the appraisal wells (Antelope-1, Antelope-2, Antelope-3 and Antelope-4) while they are flow testing Antelope-5. Elk-4, the discovery well, will not be monitored.

Before the certification process begins in the fourth Qtr. of 2015 the  certifying  companies will have the test data and they should have the results of the drilling of Antelope-6 which is to be completed by the end of the third Qtr.

In my message (#28)  of  Jan. 14, 2015 I told you that IOC expected the top of the formation to come in at -1,785 meters sub sea based on their new map http://tinyurl.com/n6ox33b chart 11. Today’s PR indicates that they actually expected the top to be at -1,764 meters (1,534 +230). As I said this was a surprise because that made the well much lower than had  been indicated by previous maps such as IOC’s interpretation in the GLJ report of 2009 http://tinyurl.com/lrjknkq  page 37 of 51. So today they said they found the top at -1,534 meters sub sea which is right on with Dave Holland’s old GLJ map from 2009. Actually this is old information as we got the same thing from OSH back on Feb. 5, 2015. They were at a depth of -1,536 meters and running 9 5/8”  casing as of Jan. 31, 2015. So they have been running casing from Jan. 31st to Feb. 16th. We are now ready to drill into the reservoir at Antelope-5. This could explain why there has been no data from either Antelope-4 or 5. Neither well has drilled any reservoir rock yet.

So where does this put us? Yes, the reservoir will be 230 meters thicker than they expected based  on their Jan. 12th presentation http://tinyurl.com/n6ox33b  page 11 but it will be right back to the amount expected based on the  old GLJ report of 2009. So we have not gained anything we have just not lost anything. This new information makes Antelope-5 higher than any other well in the field, just as expected based on the old maps.

Correction: Antelope-3 (not shown on the old map) is the highest well in the field at -1,522 meters sub sea. Antelope-5 is at -1,534 meters.

I think the thrust fault has pushed the Antelope fault block up and over the fault blocks to the west. That in it self should tend to make the part of the Antelope block that is near the fault higher than the rest of the field. Much like is presented on the map at http://tinyurl.com/lrjknkq ; on page 37 of 51 Map 5.  
Antelope-3, which is between Antelope-1 and Antelope-2, came in at -1,522 meters sub sea and now Antelope-5, west and a little north of Antelope-2,  has come in at -1,534 meters. So this whole area west of the line from Antelope-1 to Antelope-2 appears to be the highest part of the field and is mostly all higher than Antlelope-1’s - 1,550 meters sub sea. The crest of the structure near the fault should be even higher than Antelope-5 and will have a gas column height of more than 2,300 feet.

[jft310]

IOC mgt stated Ant 5 will add materially to estimates for the reasons PET states above a gas column height of over 2300 feet . The average GCA and GLJ at 8.1 T's must go higher . GCA is the most conservative in the world taking the bottom estimator up helps bunches when averaging.
So we are further south and further east for GCA so far will see further east with Ant 6 before certification???

[calvin grad]

The GLJ  estimate was  9.9T. I believe Pet is saying that results so far are in line with that estimate. A6 would be additional? Antelope Deep will not be a part of the first certification? Porosity was exceptional on the first wells. Would GLJ assume the same porosity for the entire field.? If we show poor connectivity that would indicate that there are non productive areas?

[Getitrt2]

Pet, do you think that apparent push-up of the Antelope fault block to the west could have also pushed up the bottom of the reservoir as well, affecting the height of the gas column?

Do you think the A5 information may indicate they might want to drill another well or wells further west at some point in the future for final certification?

[petrengr1]

Pet, do you think that apparent push-up of the Antelope fault block to the west could have also pushed up the bottom of the reservoir as well, affecting the height of the gas column? Do you think the A5 information may indicate they might want to drill another well or wells further west at some point in the future for final certification?

Of course the gas/water contact is at a depth of -2,228 meters sub sea where the gross pay thickness will be 2,300+ feet. That will not change. What will  change as we move to the west is the thickness of the pay zone. If what I think is correct, the thrust fault probably cuts through the pay zone at a fairly shallow angle, i.e. probably less than 45 degrees rather than more like a near vertical fault. So the last several hundred feet of the field  at the west will become thinner as the pay thickness will become thinner from the gas/water contact at 2,300 feet to zero feet at the western limit of the field.

The second and last certification of reserves will be based on the reservoir pressure reduction for a given amount of production. This will be a much better and more accurate method for determining the true reserves for the field. This second certification will occur at any time between the shipment of the first cargo and 60 days after the production of the first 25% of the first certified resource volume  This is just my opinion based on GLJ’s opinion that the field will not have a water drive.

It will not be necessary to drill more  wells unless they are needed for deliverability for the LNG plant or if the connectivity test shows the wells are not connected. My opinion is that all of the wells are connected.

[Getitrt2]

Thanks, Pet! I guess that shows my geological ignorance, but I'm still glad I asked the questions. HO HO!