Proposed Antelope 7 well location

[Kaliboo]

I've given this a cursory review.  There's no question the well location needs to be west of A5, which has the best reefal buildup of the wells tested and was proven to be in pressure communication with Wells. 6 and 1, at least.  The huge thickness of A5 suggests reservoir has to extend a good bit to the west.

Looking at existing well spacings, it appears that a distance of 2.5 Km from A5 to A1 and A5 to A6, still allows good well pressure communication.  But this is all in the north - south or west to east directions from A5.  A7 is roughly about 2.5 km due west from A5.  The map suggests the deposition will transition from reef to slope and there will be a fault.

Moving the well too far west is the risk.  It may land on the other side of the fault and miss the reservoir completely.  But given the tremendously good quality of A5, it would seem there has to be reservoir a good distance to the west of A5.

A vertical well at the proposed location is probably the lowest cost.  But drilling dry holes at lowest cost is not a good thing.

Phil Mulacek in his July presentation (which by the way seems to be an excellent document to use in a No with dissent vote AND/OR to use in letters to regulators to pursue illegal trading crimes committed by Hession and the board) provides a better well plan which is closer to A5 and which seeks to find the reservoir and the fault using a lateral directional drilling plan.  The geological risk of his plan is greatly reduced but the mechanical risk (a more complex well) is probably greater but only after the lateral part begins.  The first part of the well would conventionally penetrate the reservoir.  I would take that vertical well down to the GWC, log and evaluate, then sidetrack shallow and go west to find the fault with a lateral directional well.  That may be exactly the same as what Phil proposed.  This seems much better than what IOC have told us to date on A7.

As I mentioned in another thread, these companies are not drilling this well with IOC shareholder interests in mind in my opinion.

[2126]

In Phil's presentation on A7, he indicates that drilling further east of the current drill site makes more sense and is less risky [less chance to miss the resevoir and find the fault]. Any geological reason that Total could not use the current drill site for A7 and angle the well back east-ward after reaching a particular depth in order to save $ on preparing another drill site; finding the exact location of the western fault; and being more confident of hitting the resevoir to the east as well?

Do we know for sure that Total is going ahead with the A7 well at the previously sited drill pad, or could this latest delay be related to preparing a new site [or is it just wanting to know who their partner will be}?

[Kaliboo]

In Phil's presentation on A7, he indicates that drilling further east of the current drill site makes more sense and is less risky [less chance to miss the resevoir and find the fault]. Any geological reason that Total could not use the current drill site for A7 and angle the well back east-ward after reaching a particular depth in order to save $ on preparing another drill site; finding the exact location of the western fault; and being more confident of hitting the resevoir to the east as well?

Do we know for sure that Total is going ahead with the A7 well at the previously sited drill pad, or could this latest delay be related to preparing a new site [or is it just wanting to know who their partner will be}?

. Looking at the map the A7 proposed location is only about 2.5 km away, maybe less.  So that is 8200 ft or less.  If they drill a vertical well and hit good reservoir rock, then they will log it, take pressures, and likely do a flow test.  I would think they would put gauges in the A5 well to see if the pressure wave reaches A5.  If so, there there likely is not a fault in between.  If the well is just to the east of the fault then the pressure signature may indicate a nearby barrier.  They may be able to infer a distance to a fault or barrier.  At that point it would be optional to sidetrack shallow with a slant hole to head to the fault or barrier.  I'm not sure that would be worth doing or necessary.  A geologist familiar with their model would need to assess that.  Whether it is worth doing depends on how much incremental volume the information might add.  If the well is not in communication with A5, then there is a fault of other barrier present.  Slanting back to the east with a sidetrack might find it.  I have no idea what TOT's plans are.  Delays can happen for lots of reasons.

[Kaliboo]

In Phil's presentation on A7, he indicates that drilling further east of the current drill site makes more sense and is less risky [less chance to miss the resevoir and find the fault]. Any geological reason that Total could not use the current drill site for A7 and angle the well back east-ward after reaching a particular depth in order to save $ on preparing another drill site; finding the exact location of the western fault; and being more confident of hitting the resevoir to the east as well?

Do we know for sure that Total is going ahead with the A7 well at the previously sited drill pad, or could this latest delay be related to preparing a new site [or is it just wanting to know who their partner will be}?

. Looking at the map the A7 proposed location is only about 2.5 km away, maybe less.  So that is 8200 ft or less.  If they drill a vertical well and hit good reservoir rock, then they will log it, take pressures, and likely do a flow test.  I would think they would put gauges in the A5 well to see if the pressure wave reaches A5.  If so, there there likely is not a fault in between.  If the well is just to the east of the fault then the pressure signature may indicate a nearby barrier.  They may be able to infer a distance to a fault or barrier.  At that point it would be optional to sidetrack shallow with a slant hole to head to the fault or barrier.  I'm not sure that would be worth doing or necessary.  A geologist familiar with their model would need to assess that.  Whether it is worth doing depends on how much incremental volume the information might add.  If the well is not in communication with A5, then there is a fault of other barrier present.  Slanting back to the east with a sidetrack might find it.  I have no idea what TOT's plans are.  Delays can happen for lots of reasons.

UPDATE: I see in the MIC on page 40, under "interim Resource Certification" that the Antelope 7 appraisal well is to be located approximatelly 1.3 km west-south-west of Antelope 5...."

This is much closer than what is drawn on the map in the presentation and a good bit closer to A5 than other wells.  This means that there is a much higher probability it will be in the reservoir and be in pressure communicatino to A5.  But since it is closer it won't add as much volume as a comparable success well located further west.  So it is a tradeoff.  I think I would rather have a higher Ps of connecting to the reservoir with a closer location and add some volume vs. possibly missing the whole reservoir by being too far west.  But if you were hoping to max out at 10 TCFE, that possibility just shrank with the closer location.  Maybe their thought was in light of the low volume certified by OSH of 6.43 TCFE, they actually were looking to bump up the numbers for shareholders by being more conservative as opposed to taking too much risk and adding nothing.

[Stavros]

Can't they drill straight down first, and see what happens? If they don't hit the fault, they can do their logging/testing business and then side track towards the West?

[petrengr1]

In Phil's presentation on A7, he indicates that drilling further east of the current drill site makes more sense and is less risky [less chance to miss the resevoir and find the fault]. Any geological reason that Total could not use the current drill site for A7 and angle the well back east-ward after reaching a particular depth in order to save $ on preparing another drill site; finding the exact location of the western fault; and being more confident of hitting the resevoir to the east as well?

Do we know for sure that Total is going ahead with the A7 well at the previously sited drill pad, or could this latest delay be related to preparing a new site [or is it just wanting to know who their partner will be}?

. Looking at the map the A7 proposed location is only about 2.5 km away, maybe less.  So that is 8200 ft or less.  If they drill a vertical well and hit good reservoir rock, then they will log it, take pressures, and likely do a flow test.  I would think they would put gauges in the A5 well to see if the pressure wave reaches A5.  If so, there there likely is not a fault in between.  If the well is just to the east of the fault then the pressure signature may indicate a nearby barrier.  They may be able to infer a distance to a fault or barrier.  At that point it would be optional to sidetrack shallow with a slant hole to head to the fault or barrier.  I'm not sure that would be worth doing or necessary.  A geologist familiar with their model would need to assess that.  Whether it is worth doing depends on how much incremental volume the information might add.  If the well is not in communication with A5, then there is a fault of other barrier present.  Slanting back to the east with a sidetrack might find it.  I have no idea what TOT's plans are.  Delays can happen for lots of reasons.

UPDATE: I see in the MIC on page 40, under "interim Resource Certification" that the Antelope 7 appraisal well is to be located approximatelly 1.3 km west-south-west of Antelope 5...."

This is much closer than what is drawn on the map in the presentation and a good bit closer to A5 than other wells.  This means that there is a much higher probability it will be in the reservoir and be in pressure communicatino to A5.  But since it is closer it won't add as much volume as a comparable success well located further west.  So it is a tradeoff.  I think I would rather have a higher Ps of connecting to the reservoir with a closer location and add some volume vs. possibly missing the whole reservoir by being too far west.  But if you were hoping to max out at 10 TCFE, that possibility just shrank with the closer location.  Maybe their thought was in light of the low volume certified by OSH of 6.43 TCFE, they actually were looking to bump up the numbers for shareholders by being more conservative as opposed to taking too much risk and adding nothing.

Kaliboo- Thanks for that information. Maybe they are building a new location closer to Antelope-5 like Phil suggested at  http://www.concernedinteroilshareholders..._Final.pdf page 18.

[Kaliboo]

Can't they drill straight down first, and see what happens? If they don't hit the fault, they can do their logging/testing business and then side track towards the West?

.

That may be their plan.  That's what Phil suggested and I support i.e., without the benefit of having all the other technical information.