RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Thanks to ausumemathThank you for pointing out an embarassing overlook on my part. When I read the reserve report where the evaluator uses an assumed gradient of .43 psi/foot to estimate pressure of 908 psi, I thought the data was not available. Why use an estimate if you know the real number.
So i carefully re-read the full release and noted
Well 1 had an ISIP of 900 psi right on normal gradient. It even said it flowed at 940 psi.That indicates to me a extremely high permability as the pressure drop would be extremely low to produce 24 MMCD. That is a wow factor!
Well 2 had a pressure of 372 ISIP. That is very underpressured (.2 psi/foot), similar to pinta dome. They also discussed implications of the low pressure as both wells penetrate the lower pressured zone butb tested in only 1 well.
The pinta dome field had a 172 psi original pressure based on the press release or a gradient of 0.16 psi/foot. Underpressured similar to second well test. This impacts reserves quite a bit and drainage potential.
This helps a lot in understanding reserves. Interesting in the new release that they say the offset fields produce over 9 bcf of crude gas not 9 bcf helium as they continue to show on presentations.
Other papers show the fields produced 700 MMCF or 0.7 BCF helium , like in the report they have you download. This paper also discuss the perils of potential underpressured reservoirs and that going deeper reduces that risk. These 2 wells support that. Just look at cross section of basin and you can see the risk. The pinta dome field also had a water leg under the gas.