We all have a right to post our best estimates, but 170 bscf per metre would equate to 4.25 Tscf for each 25m, which is on the high side because it does not allow for loss of porosity during compaction (10-12% porosity) and 35% water saturation. The estimates I made a few days ago adjusted the 4.1 Tscf equiv to 25m to about 3 Tscf for each 25m in the UA.
25% ntg was quoted by Scott for the PA, therefore for the UA we applied a ntg range 10%, 15% and 20%, then multiplied the final figures by 70% NTG for the individual sands. But the question is, does that allow for areal variation in NTG as the 3D seismic should help in that regard? In addition ERCE only applied a limited column height of 650m, which resulted in a limited area in the UA and so 20 Tscf at the report date appears to be extremely conservative in my opinion. If there is 1100-1200m gross, 3 Tscf per 25m and apply the NTG ranges (70% for sands plus multiply by NTG ranges 10, 15, 20%), then the minimum should be 10 Tscf for the UA alone.
