Professional evaluation of IOC's assets as reported GLJ.Poster Petengr/for you US2. | IOC Message Board Posts

IOC   /  Message Board  /  Read Message



Rec'd By
Authored By
Minimum Recs
Previous Message  Next Message    Post Message    Post a Reply return to message boardtop of board
Msg  5686 of 13357  at  8/26/2010 11:25:43 AM  by


Professional evaluation of IOC's assets as reported GLJ.Poster Petengr/for you US2.

Mar_lui_99-GLJ split the reservoir into several segments and calculated the OGIP (Original Gas In Place)

1.Non-Reef Micritric Limestone OGIP:
Matrix Puri only: 1.023 TCF
Fracture System Puri only: 0.152 TCF
Mendi Matrix only: 0.279 TCF
Mendi fracture system: 0.059 TCF

2. Reef OGIP:
Upper Reef Limestone: 2.254 TCF + 0.134 TCF in Sor zone.
Dolomite Zone: 6.055 TCF + 0.370 in Sor zone.
Lower Reef Limestone: 1.613 TCF

Total after subtracting the duplicated rock volume = 11,424 TCF using IOC maps and 10,533 TCF using GLJ maps. The is OGIP not recoverable gas.

I use the above just to show you where most of the gas is located so you can get a frame of reference about where we are drilling this horizontal hole. That would be in the lower reef limestone. So which number are we changing and by how much when we drill the horizontal hole? GLJ used a porosity of 7.3% in their calculations for the most likely case. At the time they didnt have the log in Antelope-2 on the lower reef limestone but it didnt look too great in the vertical hole when we did get it. Now, on the first horizontal hole IOC says they had an average porosity of 11.1%. So now we have two vertical holes and 1 horizontal hole in the lower reef limestone. The horizontal hole certainly makes that area of the reservoir look a lot better than it looked in either of the vertical holes but how much should it change the over all total of the OGIP? I dont think they will change the whole field based on this horizontal hole. We may see a percentage improvement in the 1.613 TCF number. If they did increase the porosity for the whole field in the lower reef limestone from 7.3% to 11.1% that would be a 52% increase (very unlikely) but that would increase the total for the lower reef limestone from 1.613 TCF to 2.452 TCF for an increase of 0.839 TCF
Part II

So, to answer your questions:
1. No, the results of DST No. 5 will not increase the gas reserves to 20 TCF.
2. I dont think we will see another third party resource calculation before early next year. IOC usually has an end of the year report prepared for the SEC and it will probably be available in late March, 2011. It is quite possible that one of the bidding parties might have a Reservoir Engineering Firm make an estimate of the reserves for their own use but they would have no reason to want to make that information public.
3. What would it take for a third party to raise the resource estimate? Well, they would have to somehow increase the rock volume containing gas (new seismic interpretation) or increase the average porosity they are using or reduce the water saturation they are using.

As far as liquids are concerned, GLJ used 19 bbl/MMCF in their calculation for their best case. DST No. 5 tested 20-21 bbl/MMCF. IOC is using 22.5 bbl/MMCF for their stripping plant calculation. Until IOC comes up with another PVT sample that indicates a higher yield at the stripping plant I guess we will just have to assume the best numbers are those which have been published. We think the stripping plant will recover a higher amount than is measured on DSTs so it might not be unreasonable to expect more than 22.5 bbl/MMCF at the stripping plant if they produce all of the gas from the bottom of the reservoir. We have not yet proven that we can produce these extremely high volumes from the bottom of the reservoir. I would still like to see a full flow test of the horizontal holes up the 7 tubing. With that very high porosity/permeability zone in the first horizontal hole I think it would be very interesting.

So far no information has been made public that would cause GLJ to make a significant change in their calculations. At present those numbers stand at 9.08 TCFe for the best case and 11.04 TCFe for the high case. These numbers include the liquids. See page 6.

     e-mail to a friend      printer-friendly     add to library      
Recs: 5  
   Views: 426 []
Previous Message  Next Message    Post Message    Post a Reply return to message boardtop of board

Financial Market Data provided by