Aminex Share Discussion Threads

[rafix] 10/2/2017 18:05

So are we drilling further down to see if there's oil??

[tidy 2] 10/2/2017 17:59

Yep that's the difference

[ngms27] 10/2/2017 17:51

Peter,

Except that the laws of physics say that oil will be below gas. So why no oil at NT-1 down dip?

[greyingsurfer] 10/2/2017 17:39

I think most of the recent discussions here about what N-2 has hit are based on very little evidence. It's certainly too early to be definite about anything, but I think the answer is likely to prove far more mundane. If you look at the Aug 2016 presentation, page 9, the latest figure showing site and expectations for N-2, it shows that N-1 had 3m of net gas above GDT, and a further 16m or so which was water wet and below GDT. Gross reservoir thickness was 25m. The evidence was that the lower 16m, though part of the same general structure the 3m net pay was in, was distinct from it. Slide 9 shows an expectation that N-2 would interact both layers, above GDT, at about the depth gas was found. So the expectation was probably for a gross gas bearing layer of 30m or a bit more, judging by slide 9 - in fact they hit 50. Better than expected, but not fundamentally, or surprisingly different. They also noted "higher than expected pressures". Not "very high pressures" or "much higher than expected pressures". It's not a great surprise if the recorded pressures are a bit higher at N-2 than at N-1, as N-2 has presumably intersected both of the layers intersected at N-1 - both the one tested, and the lower one, not tested at N-1, for which we have no pressure data.Finally there were oil shows. Again, there's no great mystery if they were found in some parts of the field, or in some layers of it, but not at others. And as for condensate, we don't yet know. The testing and analysis will provide a lot more clarity to this, and may yet show something unexpected, but on the basis of what's been reported so far there seems no evidence to support much of the conjecture here about the well results, which assumes a major divergence from the previously published model.Excellent news, and very welcome, but there's nothing yet to suggest large differences from what was hoped for on the basis of the latest model. At least until we get more information from the test results I see no reason to speculate further.Peter

[ngms27] 10/2/2017 17:36

One thing I should have added, prior to the April 2016 presentation NT-1 was deemed to be a Cenomanian discovery, from April 2016 onwards it's late Albian.

Having just looked at all the presentations it's clear that NT-2 in April 2015 IS NOW NT-3, the distances and everything else ties up at 5.65KM. NT-2 has been drilled 1.5KM from NT-1.

I remain convinced all is not what it seems and the presentations DON'T tie in with the drill bit.

I'm really looking forward to the next RNS :)

[tidy 2] 10/2/2017 17:30

Namisange 5.7 TCF ?

[ngms27] 10/2/2017 17:15

tidy, the original NT-2 up until and including the May 2015 presentation is now NT-3.

For some reason it was decided to change NT-2 to appraise NT-1 channels and not test the thicker sands in DIFFERENT channels further away. This decision might have been based on the need to drill 4 wells or lose parts of KN-1 by lowering the risk of one well or it might have benn based on the two higher targets that evidently failed.

Either way NT-2 in the May 2015 presentation is now NT-3 in subsequent presentations plus they now think Likonde updip also is present so they may have changed the location of NT-3 slightly.

[tmmalik] 10/2/2017 17:08

Some big trades after close ,two RNS for extension.

[haggismchaggis] 10/2/2017 17:00

Sure Ed. My money is on N2 hitting a thick edge of L1, if not that then hitting the edge of Namisange.

[thegreatgeraldo] 10/2/2017 16:58

& te point about the pressure difference is that the company thought it worth mentioning in the RNS...

[edgein] 10/2/2017 16:57

Haggis,

Better to wait for full well analysis from the company in the short term.

Regards,
Ed.

[tidy 2] 10/2/2017 16:52

Where was the original NT2 meant to be?

[ngms27] 10/2/2017 16:49

Ed, I believe in virgin reservoirs like this the bottom hole pressures should correlate on a gradient. It appears they don't which I fail to understand unless they haven't drilled what they thought they had. To me this is A Level physics i.e. Boyles law.

BTW my point about the May 2015 presentation is correct. In that presentation NT-2 is indeed NT-3.

[haggismchaggis] 10/2/2017 16:47

Yes, just under a mile away. But look at the AEX presentations, N2 was drilled closer to the N3 target, and the L1 field.

[rafix] 10/2/2017 16:46

Just out of curiosity why are we drilling further has there been any indication of something further down???

[blackgold00] 10/2/2017 16:43

just in case there's any misunderstanding, the Ntorya-2 wellsite, is approximately 1,500 metres away from Ntorya-1 and not 5.6km

[tidy 2] 10/2/2017 16:42

Shale source rock lowed down feeding the entire province ....!!!

[haggismchaggis] 10/2/2017 16:36

... Or N3?

[haggismchaggis] 10/2/2017 16:35

What about getting condensate in N1 with no oil shows, versus oil shows in N2 with no condensate indicated? This links N2 far more to L1 than N1?

[edgein] 10/2/2017 16:30

JonnyT,

That's not even true on most fields, you'll get variable downhole and flowing pressures on many wells in regular tilted fault blocks. I've never seen two appraisal wells to date with matching statistics in one field (always variables like reservoir quality, saturation level, permeability, its not just depth of burial and temp). You've now got a world of information to read over on this particular play type.

Regards,
Ed.

[edgein] 10/2/2017 16:25

"In a connected structure with no permeability barriers the pressures have to be identical when adjusted for depth/temperature the RNS suggests they weren't."

There's my point in a nutshell. You'll find that in a system like the above mentioned fans neither porosity, permeability, nor pressure are identical from the base of the fan to the channels. My point exactly. I did point you to a discovery in a north sea sloping fan drilled by sterling energy where the flow rates and pressures differed significantly depending on what part of the fan they were drilled. Well if that fan model is to scale and NT-2 there is 5.6km from NT-1 look at the size of that channel and fan system. Surely that's not the case, otherwise the system would be some 30-50kms in length!

Regards,
Ed.

[ngms27] 10/2/2017 16:16

Ed, the only problem being is that in that Presentation NT-2 is in fact NT-3 now. Which is why I'm banging on about different pressures and the oil shows and NT-2 as drilled was meant to hit the very same channel as NT-1 up dip NOT different channels as per the May 2015 presentation.

In a connected structure with no permeability barriers the pressures have to be identical when adjusted for depth/temperature the RNS suggests they weren't. Which is why I'm thinking NT-2 has actually encountered DIFFERENT sand channels to NT-1 and they aren't connected.

[edgein] 10/2/2017 16:12

For those of you that don't like complex articles and hours and hours of reading. Old Ed will simplify it for you. NT-1 in the lower sands/channels/perhaps fans depending on how accurate the 2D seismic lines are. NT-2 is in a main channel updip, therefore higher pressure (even higher than the jvp anticipated), good quality reservoir yet to be tested. And NT-3, well that one lies in the land of hope and glory, updip to all of the above.

Regards,
Ed.