The company said - being in possession of specialist fracture studies - that one third of the Shaikan oil was recoverable.
Applying that to the 13.7 billion barrels Oil In Place P50 figure for Shaikan, that gave 4.57 billion barrels recoverable.
But what did ERCE say in the CPR? Barely one-third of that? And the percentage of even their diminished figure was pitiful. Of course, some of the "reduction" in the Oil In Place was merely presentational, because ERCE excluded the Cretaceous and the Triassic, in order to align the CPR (but WHY?) with the Field Development Plan. But the Recovery Factor was kicked back, that's for sure.
Re: NickiMinaj Okay. So what we are saying here is that we could compare these shenanigans to George W. Bush, Tony Blair and the existence of WMD just to make it more dramatic. No wonder the City cannot place common sense value on the stock and only has the option of the companys current finance and future ongoing payments to guide the price. Even for them now this is all way to abstract and a serious pain in the but. The board needs to realise that to borrow money these days, the lenders want blood in return so time to wind the clock and start putting pressure where needed. Tic Toc Tic Toc
ERCE used a low fracture porosity assumption of 0.4% (which did not even come from Shaikan data) in their assessment of a much lower percentage of Recoverable oil than had previously been indicated by Adnan Samarrai, John Gerstenlauer and Todd Kozel in presentations and public discussions.
At the same time that the ERCE CPR was published, John Gerstenlauer and John Stafford were making it very obvious that they did not agree with ERCE about the fracture porosity.
We know that Gulf have had various Fracture Porosity studies done by external specialist consuktants since the summer of 2009. We have dates of some of them, and details of who did them. We have thye names of some of the geologists who wrote those reports. Some of them have shared the same stage as John Stafford, in 2013 and 2014, giving Presentations on this very issue.
We cannot establish from the CPR whether or not ERCE had these fracture porosity reports when they wrote the CPR, because in the CPR there are no references to those studies so far as we can see, nor are there any references to any fracture porosity numbers by ERCE. All we appear to have is ERCE's own assumptions, which are apparently not driven by Shaikan data.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.