More prognostications…1. Field size option 1 (low ball – Orca...

More prognostications…

1. Field size option 1 (low ball – Orca assumption):

The following graphic is currently being offered on the Orca (Songo Songo), web site…



When scaled to the Island and existing well locations, we get a pretty good idea of what Orca feel might be the nature of the Kiliwani North mapped closure…



The area shown has a footprint of approximately 2,858,000m2.

Assuming an average pay zone of 40m across the mapped closure (ie, from 10-80m ), we get the following…

Area 1 = 2,858,000 m2 x 40 (depth av) = 114,320,000 m3
114,320,000 m3 x 35.3 = 4,035,496,000 cf …(1m3 = 35.3 cf)
4,035,496,000 / 43,560 = 92,642 acre ft…(1 acre ft = 43,560 cf)

Plugging 92,642 acre ft into our calculator we get…



So, low ball OGIP, based on the Orca assumed closure = 89bcf (59.4 bcf recoverable)


2. Field size options (t4p assumption):

Using the only seismic I can find for Kiliwani North and scaling it to the know drill locations…then cross-checking against the Island outline for scale and positioning…we can fairly accurately assume the position of the seismic relative to the KN-1 well.

From here, we get three potential field sizes, based on low, medium and high GWC (gas water contact) relative to the seismic outlines…remembering of course the KN-1 well hit the GWC some 30m lower than initially expected.

2a. Field size option 1 (low case):



The area shown has a footprint of approximately 3,817,000m2.

Assuming an average pay zone of 40m across the mapped closure (ie, from 10-80m ), we get the following…

Area 1 = 3,817,000 m2 x 40 (depth av) = 152,680,000 m3
152,680,000 m3 x 35.3 = 5,389,604,000 cf …(1m3 = 35.3 cf)
5,389,604,000 / 43,560 = 123,728 acre ft…(1 acre ft = 43,560 cf)

Plugging 123,728 acre ft into our calculator we get…

Low case assumed OGIP field size = 119.2bcf (79.3 bcf recoverable)


2b. Field size option 2 (mid case):



The area shown has a footprint of approximately 5,760,000m2.

Assuming an average pay zone of 40m across the mapped closure (ie, from 10-80m ), we get the following…

Area 2 = 5,760,000 m2 x 40 (depth av) = 230,400,000 m3
230,400,000 m3 x 35.3 = 8,133,120,000 cf …(1m3 = 35.3 cf)
8,133,120,000 / 43,560 = 186,710 acre ft…(1 acre ft = 43,560 cf)

Plugging 186,710 acre ft into our calculator we get…

Mid case assumed OGIP field size = 179.9bcf (119.7 bcf recoverable)


2c. Field size option 3 (upper case):



The area shown has a footprint of approximately 10,730,000 m2.

Assuming an average pay zone of 40m across the mapped closure (ie, from 10-80m ), we get the following…

Area 3 = 10,730,000 m2 x 40 (depth av) = 429,200,000 m3
429,200,000 m3 x 35.3 = 15,150,760,000 cf …(1m3 = 35.3 cf)
15,150,760,000 / 43,560 = 347,813 acre ft…(1 acre ft = 43,560 cf)

Plugging 347,813 acre ft into our calculator we get…

Upper case assumed OGIP field size = 335.1bcf (222.9 bcf recoverable)


Summary:

1. Orca based low ball assumed OGIP field size = 89bcf (59.4 bcf recoverable)
2. Low case assumed OGIP field size = 119.2bcf (79.3 bcf recoverable)
3 Mid case assumed OGIP field size = 179.9bcf (119.7 bcf recoverable)
4. Upper case assumed OGIP field size = 335.1bcf (222.9 bcf recoverable)

Finally, perhaps of interest…

I notice the recent SS-10 well drilled by Orca flowed a maximum of 52mmcf/d…but at a stabilised flow of 40mmcf/d…exactly the same as Kiliwnai North-1.

Interestingly, Orca have reported they expect the SS-10 well to actually produce at a rate of 55mmcf/d once hooked up to the grid!

I wonder if we might expect to see a similar production end result for KN-1?

Food for thought?

Cheers!