Saltfleetby Risks Highlighted in CPR27 May 2020 12:38
For those who haven't read or analysed a CPR before then they apply an assumptions model and with further drilling that model may need to be updated and intern the financial model will have to be adjusted
2 points stood out for me:
1. "....the faulting could compartmentalise the reservoir leading to isolation of gas volumes." That means you don't have full communication and hence less production. Otherwise you have to spend more money drilling a well. £2.3 million a well.
2. " The reservoirs are mapped on poor-to-moderate quality 3D seismic data." T
The Full Risks from the CPR on Pages 7-8 are below:
"Key Risks
The volumetric analysis is intrinsically uncertain
1. The main sources of uncertainty in the volumetric analysis relate to the seismic data quality and the reservoir quality (Figure 13 of main report). The reservoirs are mapped on poor-to-moderate quality 3D seismic data. All top-of-reservoir structure-maps were built using well data (more accurate but sampling locally) and strong seismic horizons, i.e. the Base of Permian and the Top of Dinantian (low resolution but sampled field- wide). In general, the uncertainty in time-depth conversion and horizon-picking still impose a risk on trap closure (10%). There are no risks in the source rock, migration, charge and seal. However, there is a remaining risk in the reservoir effectiveness (20%) due to the highly faulted structure: the faulting could compartmentalise the reservoir leading to isolation of gas volumes.
2. There is ambiguity in the interpretation of the logs.
Depth migration of the seismic data could reduce the uncertainty of the depth maps. Remaining uncertainty about structure and faults
1. It is uncertain whether the saddle between the Main Field and the Southern Satellite isolates pressures. It appears to for the timescales of field development. If it does not, production profiles from the three wells of the development plan may be different to those presented
2. It is uncertain whether faulting seals the structure at 2338m. If it does not, the 3P, 3C gas and condensate liquids would be too high.
Remaining uncertainty about reservoir quality and performance
1. There may be sub-seismic resolution baffles to production which reduce the pressure responsiveness of the Main Reservoir and adversely affect the production profile.
2. Condensate banking may increase the skin (excess pressure drop) of the wells, reducing the gas productivity index and the economic condensate recovery.
3. The reservoir penetrated by the horizontal sidetrack of well SF5 may be of poorer (or better) quality than expected.
4. Water production may increase more quickly than expected, reducing performance and life expectancy of one or more of the wells; and potentially requiring a well workover to remedy the problem."
http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Reserves-Resources-Valuation-Report-Angus-Energy-Saltfleetby-Assets-Effective-Date-28th-February-2020-Report-
Sign In
Follow the stocks
