Daily Distortions on InterOil no.7

In the previous episode we showed you a couple of guys posting a funny “collapsing well” theory. The only source of that theory was a supposed phone call to OilSearch, another oil and gas company operating on PNG. We also argued these guys are no geologist. The latter point will become crystal clear after reading the following hilarious entries.. Some people go to great lengths distorting the truth, even coming up with their own definitions and then using these to slam IOC..

We quoted Wayne Andrews, the analyst from Raymond James covering InterOil in an update last year when he used a resource estimate of 3.1 to 15.7Tcf for Elk:

  • The low end of the range assumes only fracture porosity contribution to reserves and excludes matrix porosity [RJ 11/04/07 p3]

So, if the limestone displays matrix porosity, the estimate is at the high end, it is is clearly important whether matrix porosity is present.

This part one of the clowns we’re writing about got right. But since he (obviously) didn’t have a clue what matrix porosity is (we will discuss that at the end of this article), he started providing his own definitions, and then using them to show that it’s all nonsense. The results are pretty funny:

  • Matrix Porosity is a method of measuring porosity using the sample core of the rock as opposed to the entire core. Do you even know what it is? Its not something you “achieve”. [Bostonkenmore]
  • The latest porosity figures are for Matrix Porosity which is pretty much bull. Its an entirely hypothetical case which assumes a weighted average using the porsity of unpremeable rock. [Bostonkenmore]
  • Matrix Porosity, as defined by answers.com, just takes a small sampling of the rock and assumes Porosity for the entire sediment. This is different from Total Porosity that takes the rock in total. I’d say that taking a total measure of the rock is a better measure. Matrix Porosity is really nothing more than a guess. They are using the porosity of rock that isn’t permeable to comeup with their assumptions. [Bostonkenmore]
  • Matrix Porosity is method of measuring porosity that doesn’t use the entire core but uses a sampling. They then extract an average porosity based upon these samples. But if you are using rock that can’t be penetrated in the sample your overall average is nonsense. That’s exactly what they are doing by the way. [Bostonkenmore]

Note especially

  1. He doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about (see below for an explanation what matrix porosity is
  2. He nevertheless uses his nonsense definition to slam the company (something which, without any possible doubt, shows intent). For instance:
  • But if you are using rock that can’t be penetrated in the sample your overall average is nonsense. That’s exactly what they are doing by the way.
  • They are using the porosity of rock that isn’t permeable to comeup with their assumptions.

These ones are hilarious. Apparently, the rock of the sample InterOil uses to measure porosity cannot be penetrated and/or isn’t permeable, but they’re doing it anyway?  Why?? If it can’t be penetrated and/or isn’t permeable, that sample rock wouldn’t hold any gas.. Now why would InterOil use such a sample to measure “total porosity”??

But somehow, it’s bad what they’re doing, right, Boston?

Permeability, by the way, is a measure of how much a source material (sandstone, limestone, etc.) can hold of a resource (oil, gas). Porosity is a measure for how much that resource is able to flow. In general, for both measures, the higher the better.

Here some real concepts from a serious site:

Porosity may develop in a formation by a variety of mechanisms. Where pores are uniformly distributed throughout the bulk rock, the porosity is referred to as matrix porosity. Where the only storage space in the rock system is in cracks and fissures in an otherwise zero porosity matrix, the porosity is referred to as fracture porosity. A third type of porosity may coexist with either of the other types in the form of vugs, and is referred to as vuggy porosity.

Matrix Porosity

  • Matrix porosity is common in sandstone and other granular rock formations. The physics of the porosity measurement is unaffected by the manner in which the void spaces were created; i.e., it is not important whether the porosity was originally created by sedimentation of individual grains or by leaching by acidic solution after deposition. Thus, individual logging tools cannot tell directly the type or origin of the matrix porosity in a rock sample. Petrographic analysis of cores is required for that kind of information.

Fracture Porosity

  • Fracture porosity is unevenly distributed throughout the rock. It appears normally as near-vertical cracks, or fractures, whose orientation depends on the azimuth of the stresses in the formation. Not all logging tools respond to fracture and/or vuggy porosity in the same manner. Thus, it is sometimes possible to distinguish fracture and/or vuggy porosity from matrix porosity with judicious use of a combination of porosity-measuring devices and careful analysis of the results. (A difference in porosity measurements derived from a Neutron/Density suite and that provided by a Sonic tool can sometimes be attributed to this type of fracture porosity.)

Vuggy Porosity

  • Vuggy porosity is most often encountered in limestone formations. It occurs when small cavities are formed as the rock material passes into solution. Vuggy porosity is most often a type of ineffective porosity due to the fact that the small cavities are isolated from each other. If Swiss cheese were a type of rock, it would be characterized as having vuggy porosity.

We’ve posted these definitions earlier on our site.

By the way, we thought we would also like you to know that matrix porosity has been found at Elk4, according to Wayne Andrews, and Phil Mulacek also mentioned it in his talk for the institutional investors. This matters greatly, as explained above.

One thought on “Daily Distortions on InterOil no.7”

Comments are closed.