Hi Jacob.
It wouldn't b HC if there wasn't the rubbish. LOL
But lets throw out the rubbish and chat about something that probably wont interest the trolls, and if they invade this thread we'll change to another.
Annmnt breakdown from my pov.
* Phase I: Highlights – All Three “Achilles’ Heels” Substantially Mitigated
I notice the word Substantially and Mitigated. Both these words intimate partial but in the high % range.
I'll put 60-70% on it and probably leaning towards 70% given Basinki's involvement and not forgetting 88E's propensity for understatement.
*
Brittleness:
o Analogous to Haynesville and Marcellus plays
Both these plays are predominantly gaseous BUT they do flow extremely well which is where I think 88E is drawing the analogy in regards the similar porosity/permeability
o Highly amenable to fracture stimulation operations
THIS IS THE IMPORTANT ONE for me.
HIGHLY AMENABLE in the Queens English pretty much suggests that 88E are of the opinion that there should not be any issues with the fracking of the HRZ. This can only be ultimately proven with Ice 2.
*
Hydrocarbon Phase / Thermal Maturity:
o Volatile oil vapour phase
WITH HIGHER LIQUIDS CONTENT THAN FORECAST
This has two major positives that I can think of.
1) More PAYABLE liquids, means more Oil In Place in the HRZ
2) More Oil In Place means lower break even
*
Bottom Seal / Overpressure:
o Elevated pore pressure materially above hydrostatic gradient
Basically means the pressure being exerted on the hydrocarbons from within the pores is greater than the NORMAL PREDICTED PRESSURE FOR A GIVEN DEPTH.
In other words when a pore space is stimulated by say fracking, the hydrocarbons should essentially be pushed from the pore because of the higher pressure within the pore versus the LOWER STATIC PRESSURE OF THE OVERALL SHALE FORMATION.
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/en/Terms/h/hydrostatic_pressure.aspx
This elevated pore pressure also heavily intimates that the pressure is being retained in the HRZ horizon and therefore by implication there are seals in place.
*
Matrix Permeability:
o Analogous to Haynesville & substantially higher than Eagle Ford
Its the Eagle Ford comment that interests me as I havnt done much research on the Haynesville plays given its a primarily gas play.
IF this has substantially higher matrix permeability than the Eagle Ford then given the performance of Eagle Ford sweet spot plays, the FLOW performance at Icewine IS LIKELY to be higher again than the Eagle Ford sweets spots which are known to be some of the lowest costs metric wells in the lower 48 shale plays.
*
Porosity
o
EXCELLENT by comparison to other successful shale plays, including Eagle Ford
This has MAJOR implications for Oil In Place and therefore what the HRZ potentially holds as a hydrocarbon reservoir. !!!
As others have said the IRR is eagerly waited on and for good reason.
And to put it all together the company states:
Icewine #1 cored a new kind of hybrid resource play that appears to have numerous similarities to reservoirs known as Low-Contrast Low-Resistivity (LCLR), or Low Contrast Pay (LCP). These reservoirs are characterised by
production metrics and peformance more commonly associated with conventional resources (Bodnar, 2015).
In other words all the above characteristics contribute to a potential well performance that is similar to a FLOWING conventional oil well. The MAIN POINT BEING, the hydrocarbons FLOW EASILY.
The OVERVIEW goes on to confirm these analysis observations:
Overview Analysis of the core obtained from the Icewine#1 exploration well has confirmed a strong correlation between a matrix of various rock properties in the HRZ shale and the Marcellus and Haynesville shales. Consequently,
the Company believes that the HRZ will be highly amenable to fracture stimulation operations. The Marcellus and Haynesville shale plays are successful plays in their own right, achieving flow rates over 30 million cubic feet of gas per day
with comparatively low decline rates, largely due to excellent permeability. This is
highly encouraging for the flow potential at Project Icewine, especially in the context of the thermal maturity difference, which indicates 70% liquid hydrocarbon saturation as opposed to the more gas prone Marcellus and Haynesville
shale plays.
So that's a rough breakdown of the first part of the annmnt which pretty much confirms all our hopes for Ice 1 AS FAR AS WE CAN GET WITHOUT ICE 2H
The second part essentially goes on to confirm their above assumptions by proceeding with Ice 2 planning. I'm wondering however the implications of THEM planning Ice 2H?
Ideas welcome here along the lines of the potential farm-out deal.
d.
(20min delay)