In order to match 4.1 Tscf to 25m in the UA, I applied the full...

In order to match 4.1 Tscf to 25m in the UA, I applied the full 200 Km2, 15% porosity and Sw lower than the 35% currently in use. I referred to textbook gas expansion factors from a PVT table using a different reservoir pressure but similar temperature compared to Mukuyu then estimated the expansion factor by extrapolating up to the anticipated Mukuyu reservoir pressure. Subsequently following Gimo211 recommendation, the 4.1 Tscf was adjusted to allow for a more realistic porosity and Sw and I slightly increased the gas expansion factors to take into account the wide depth interval as pressure increases with depth for both the UA and the LA, which increase the gas expansion factor from 200 to 225 in the UA and 235 in the LA (approx values applied throughout as it was a first pass estimate). The 25m now represents about 2.9 to 3.2 Tscf.

ERCE independently set a P10 Gross Rock Volume hydrocarbon column height to 650m, and as illustrated in Fig 4 of the report, the contoured area appears to be quite limited. There has been talk of "fill to spill", but the only data I am aware of at the moment is that there was no fluid contacts detected in M-1 and M-2 is unlikely to encounter a fluid contact as it has been drilled through the crest of the structure. I am sure the geoscience experts at Invictus will update us in the near future with the latest regarding discussions with ERCE. Hopefully new maps and updated prospective resources will be published soon. My feeling is there is a strong case for doubling the hydrocarbon column height to 1300m if possible to expand the areal coverage.