www1.investorvillage.com
Re: OILFNDR'S analysis of Joseph/Overthrust/Hingeline chances
Fair Enough:
You have seen a full spectrum of my analytical mind at work and a mix of my gut feelings and increasing enthusiasm. Keep in mind that I stated that I was on heavy pain medications the last few days. It's not a bad idea to revisit posts as someone re-posted one of Brinks posts yesterday that I had not seen before or I had forgotten about.
To set the record straight:
I should have used quotations marks when I referred to Delta's comment that "the Joseph structure is so big it would be hard to miss". You and I both know that 3D seismic will reduce the risk of missing the structure columniations or specifically the "attic" of the structure closure.
After reviewing formation tops from a nearby well, a geology map, a topographic map, and a cross section of the Joseph Prospect; I came to the conclusion that this "Giant Structure" is located in the center of a valley and should be less prone to velocity modeling errors. However, there is always risk with using 2D seismic in that this "Giant Structure is likely carved up into multiple compartments, and it is therefore possible to drill a dry hole even if this structure closure is filled to the spill point. This same problem is magnified if the structure closure is not filled with oil and/or gas to the spill point.
My first reaction to Doug Strickland’s published prediction “that he honestly believed the odds of success were as high as 50%” was skepticism. However, based on the fact that that the odds of success have proven to be approximately 50% in the Utah/Wyoming Sevier thrust trend with 24 oil and gas fields, I now understand his enthusiasm. While it is true that 3D seismic was used in the Utah/Wyoming thrust belt during delineation of some of the fields, most of the initial discovery wells were drilled utilizing older 2D seismic data that was not processed with today’s powerful computers.
I watched a program of PBS that outlined Amoco’s success with computer modeling that “cracked the nut” using only 2D seismic in the Utah/Wyoming thrust belt. In a discussion with Petro-Hunt's geophysicists last year, he indicated that he wished he still had the velocity software programs that Amoco used in the thrust belt.
Personally, I have a great deal of faith in Armstrong, Delta, and Wolverine’s combined geotechnical team Petro-Hunt’s geophysicists as well as Liberty Pioneer’s geophysicists have both indicated have a tremendous amount of respect for Armstrong’s geophysicists.
One of the greatest risks in drilling an exploration test well is having the test well hit the predicted formation tops “on prognosis”. In my opinion this is one of the best ways to evaluate the skill set of the technical team. Based on the comments of our message board’s resident scout, and from information that I have received from others that are scouting the well, including my brother, I have become more enthusiastic to date.
I have only scratched the surface on this message board with my cumulative knowledge of thrust systems during the past 26 years. I have been working in the Central Utah Sevier Thrust Belt/Hingeline for the past 10 years. During this period of time I have prepared a detailed and proprietary geology report (36 pages) and Power Point presentation (54 slides) on Central Utah that would likely go over most everyone’s head on this message forum.
I don’t agree with you that Erik Sprout is overly enthusiastic with his numerous quotations and remarks. I personally have spoken on the phone with him twice over the past few months and he appears to be very educated, intelligent, and level headed. His comments about the CRB are spot on. |
