Aminex Share Discussion Threads

[haggismchaggis] 06/2/2017 17:22

20 mmcfd for 3.5m at the much lower pressure with condensate at N1.X mmcfd for 25m-30m at the much higher pressure with no condensate at N2.X looks more like 140-170mmcfd to me, unless it's restricted by the well size or perforation? (20/3.5)x25=142.85(20/3.5)x30=171.42

[thegreatgeraldo] 06/2/2017 16:44

Re testing, there could be a couple or more intervals tested seperately......

[canigou2] 06/2/2017 16:40

Good question re: testing equipment. 20mmcfd from 3.5m previously. This one on the face of it could have much improved deliverability. 60+ mmcfd achieved restricted (from ophirs offshore wells). Would not be surprised if these kind of numbers were achieved at NT-2. (ofcourse huge speculation, and i'm not trying to compare offshore and onshore, but not long to wait for the answers)

[blackgold00] 06/2/2017 16:30

thanks every one, and yes tgg, the thickness of the sand at N1 done to death, but i think we can all agree that today has been a good day. now to find that bottle of A'Bunadh : )

[thegreatgeraldo] 06/2/2017 16:23

Reckon the thickness of the sand at N1 has been done to death! All I was saying was that it was rather thick for a pinch out. N2 is of much more interest, some questions answered - it's gas charged & pretty thick, but some intriguing questions posed - why the higher than expected pressure & where did the oil come from & where was it going? Also, what capacity will the testing kit at N2 have?

[greyingsurfer] 06/2/2017 16:13

I'd agree that the gross section of reservoir rock was around 25m at N-1. However the gross pay was only 3m or so - the rest was water wet and so not gas charged and so not pay.The key difference seems to be, as predicted, that the whole reservoir section at N-2 is above the water and gas filled. It's also, again as expected, somewhat thicker - perhaps by a factor of two.Of course once we get back the full interpretation of the well results we might have to rethink that, but I'd think that outline is as good as you'll get from what we know so far.Peter

[whoppy] 06/2/2017 16:10

Gross was 25m Mid Cretacious Sandstone, net was 20m clean with up to 20% posrosity. Only the top 3.5m was tested.

[blackgold00] 06/2/2017 16:01

edgar222, "The gross pay at N1 was not 25m. It was 3.5 with "possibly" more."

sorry edgar, but i dont know how to read this sentence any other way, "The Ntorya-1 exploration well penetrated a gross sand interval of 25 metres"

"On 28(th) June 2012, Aminex reported the successful testing of the Ntorya-1 gas discovery. The Ntorya-1 exploration well penetrated a gross sand interval of 25 metres between 2,663 and 2,688 metres.

[edgein] 06/2/2017 15:52

Edgar,

Its relevant, the 3.5m tested in NT-1 flowed at 20mmcfd + condensate. We'll find out after logging how much of the 30m of net will be flow tested. With the higher pressure and significant increase in net that could have a material impact on test rates. The net and gross figures may change a little too after wirelining as it'll be more accurate than LWD.

Regards,
Ed.

[edgein] 06/2/2017 15:46

Blackgold,

I personally wouldn't class gas below the GWC as payable as the well will produce both.

Regards,
Ed.

[edgein] 06/2/2017 15:44

tgg,

Yeah but its heading that way is it not when you're heading east. Clearly west is where the bulk of the sand channel lies, between NT-2 and NT-3. If NT-3 is successful there are more westerly locations given what AEX have presented. My take on it is that the fans are to the east, whether or not NT-1 is at the edge of a channel or into the fans remains open to interpretation. That will lead to pinching out into the thinner sand fans. Imo there are now numerous appraisal locations between NT-2 and NT-3 based on today's news. According to partners the further west we go the thicker the channel becomes.

Regards,
Ed.

[edgar222] 06/2/2017 15:42

Greatful

Course I don't mind !

Spread the word !!

Best

[blackgold00] 06/2/2017 15:37

i make it 25m vs 51m gross and with the untested 16m at NT-1 below the gas water line makes it potentially 20m vs 30m net.



"On 28(th) June 2012, Aminex reported the successful testing of the Ntorya-1 gas discovery. The Ntorya-1 exploration well penetrated a gross sand interval of 25 metres between 2,663 and 2,688 metres. The interval comprised an upper 3.5 metre net gas-bearing pay zone with 20% porosity sandstone and a 16.5 metre lower sandstone interval with further possible gas pay."

[vinceelliott] 06/2/2017 15:22

Long time since I last bought into this. Why did I pay 1% tax today? Irish or Dutch?

[thegreatgeraldo] 06/2/2017 15:02

20m is a pretty thick pinch out

[slepy] 06/2/2017 15:01

Nice volume today BTW ;)

[edgein] 06/2/2017 14:59

tgg,

Its 20m vs 51m gross with 3.5m vs 30m net.

Regards,
Ed.

[thegreatgeraldo] 06/2/2017 14:55

Not a world of difference between the reservoir thickness in N1 & N2. Just happened that most of it was water wet in N1

[edgein] 06/2/2017 14:50

Ngms,

Well if its the same channel its at a pinch-out edge of the same channel as NT-1 had 3.5m of pay and NT-2 has around 30m. I wouldn't be surprised in the pay in the surrounding fans went down to 3.5m or less.

Regards,
Ed.

[edgein] 06/2/2017 14:48

Ngms,

Take a look at the field drilled by Sterling Energy and Encore oil, I cannot remember the name off hand. It was in a steep dipping channel and fan system. Wells in the lower area of the fan had much lower pressure than those in the upper channel system, flowed about half as much and at lower pressure. Like I've said before the well at NT-1 was targeting a tertiary oil target, it wasn't designed for testing the cretaceous. NT-2 was targeting the cretaceous updip and in a main channel and the perfect location for the jvp to choose as an appraisal location given the results today.

They could not have known before drilling that the size of the prize at NT-2. I'm not surprised that their estimates were based on the thin sand at NT-1. Makes perfect sense, it also makes perfect sense that in a main sand channel heading updip to NT-3 that they've found significantly more gas, most likely better quality reservoir that the pressure would also be increased. It was impossible to guess this without the logs of NT-2. What they did get spot on is that the chosen location would hold much thicker reservoir sequence from NT-1. What they couldn't tell from 2D seismic before drilling is the exact thickness of the reservoir nor its contents, just its density and approx depth. Read up on channels and fans cause I think your line of thinking is more conventional reservoirs.

Regards,
Ed.

[ngms27] 06/2/2017 14:35

My belief was that the channel(s) being drilled at NT-2 were the same channel(s) as drilled at NT-1 just in an updip location. Thus I expected connectivity between them. That's what the presentations suggest.

That's why the oil and unexpected pressure still don't make sense to me. I'd have expected oil at NT-1 and a pressure correlation at NT-2 (albeit lower than at NT-1)

I very nearly posted earlier about NT-2 perhaps being oil originally and that it had biodegraded, but this doesn't make sense if NT-1 and NT-2 are the same channel in my mind!

They have shown that NT-3 MAY have two separate sources and that there is a fault between.

Hopefully the RNS in late Feb will be more alluding.

[thegreatgeraldo] 06/2/2017 14:32

Edgein, the reservoir quality at N1 seems to have been none too shabby. Shall look forward to the next update from the company.

[edgein] 06/2/2017 14:08

Ngms,

This is an alluvial system and consists of main sand channels that run off into fans. Pressure is not just depth related. Often the reservoir quality of the channel will be much better than that of the fan or smaller thinner channels as encountered in NT-1. Certainly you can get oil above gas when they're no longer directly connected for migration. Look at the wells drilled in Kurdistan for example, the deeper those were drilled the more gassy they became with multiple oil reservoirs at various depths. I'm sure you know oil can become gassified under temperature and pressure just like the Eagleford shale wells too in Texas. So the oil in NT-2 could be there from migration, i.e migrated to NT-3 before the fault formed and sealed the rest of the oil at NT-2. Oil at NT-2 may then have degraded or gassified to gas after or during oil migration. I guess that's what AEX are now going to compare any oil recovered here to that of Likonde and any other wells in the area.

AEX have shown a fault between NT-2 and NT-3 locations even though its updip on the same channel system. That doesn't mean that the fault is blocking migration, so the prospectivity of all areas updip of NT-2 is now very good. AEX from the seismic may have an idea if there is also migration from the west into the upper channel with the much thicker sands. I think they may have even shown that on a slide by JB.

Regards,
Ed.

[greyingsurfer] 06/2/2017 14:06

No it was targeting more than the NT1 sands.

The proposed Ntorya updip (May 2015) is not the same as the N-2 well position just drilled.