IVZ - General Discussion, page-892

Thanks for that @Grfe4 (the reply button isn’t linking back to your post for some reason).

I see where you get the 600m figure from. But he uses the terminology of “hydrocarbon charge” and not necessarily gross or net pay. It’s a bit misleading (on his part imo) because you can have hydrocarbon charge through a reservoir but if the seal isn’t intact for example, then you won’t have any net pay. Just the residual shows from where the hydrocarbons have migrated through. Is it possible this was what he was intending to say?!

With respect to the valid pressure pre-tests and potential for significant gas columns in these PA formations, this definitely leads you to think that he’s talking about the MK-1 location and not “potential” for these columns to be located elsewhere on the structure or further updip which is confusing.

My question on the pressure test in the PA being considerably above hydrostatic pressure - if the PA reservoir continues updip from MK-1 to the MK-2 location - is it possible for these to be in pressure communication with each other? Would net pay in the updip location at MK-2 result in a higher pressure at MK-1 despite there only being residual shows at that location?

And just one more question for the geo’s - there’s been no mention of water. But is it possible that we could have net pay updip at the MK-2 location (gas and/or oil) and we have passed through the water contact in the MK-1 well which could explain the overpressure (being water bearing reservoir at that location) and also why we’re seeing the residual hydrocarbon shows as well?