Yeah hooter - it's very ambiguous wording by Woodside. I still don't quite follow how they're differentiating between "hydrocarbon sands" and "reservoir sands".
You would expect that the "hydrocarbon sands" would represent the gross hydrocarbon column, which in this case is 38.5m (1.5m of gas plus 37m of oil). They then state clearly that this is similar to that encountered by Tevet-1 (which was 114m - 70m of gas overlying 44m of oil).....that's hardly similar in my books.
And their statement that the "...amount of reservoir sand is less than expected..." implies that the net to gross ratio of oil over the 37m gross interval isn't as good as expected. Woodside have never to date commented on the net to gross ratio for any of the Chinguetti or Tiof wells (that I can recall), so it's suprising that they've commented on it here.
Hopefully the net to gross ratio is less than expected because they've drilled it out to the Southern edge of the prospect, with no significant implications on the size of the discovery as a whole. Don't forget that the location of this well had to satisfy the criteria for hitting the cretacous target as well, so it might have been convenient but not necessarily the ideal location for appraisal of Tevet in the miocene.
Hardman's report is a little better.
And the West Navigator is finished up with Chinguetti. Hopefully it moves straight onto the Tiof appraisals.....maybe as early as next week by the looks.
Cheers,
Butcherano.
HDR
hardman resources limited
