SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : ATPG Shareholders

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: petro1 who wrote (2941)4/1/2013 7:59:52 PM
From: Kramer384 Recommendations   of 3620
 
This is what ATP announced after the results of both well tests were completed.


ATP Marks Successful Clipper Well Test



HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 12, 2011-- ATP Oil & Gas Corporation (NASDAQ: ATPG) today announced the successful completion and testing of the second Clipper well at rates of 9,000 Bbls per day and 4.6 MMcf per day. When combined with the first Clipper well this brings the total test rates to approximately 13.7 MBbls of oil per day and 50.2 MMcf of natural gas per day or 22 MBbls equivalent per day (62% oil).



The second Clipper well is the #4 well located at Green Canyon 300 (GC 300) in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. The #4 well, located in approximately 3,450 feet of water, logged approximately 56 feet of net oil pay confirming reserves previously booked. The 9-5/8 inch casing was set at 15,778 feet measured depth through the pay intervals. In July 2011, ATP successfully completed and flow tested the first Clipper well, GC 300 #2 ST #1, at a rate of 4,656 Bbls per day and 45.6 MMcf per day.



The pipeline lay barge for the Clipper wells is contracted for third quarter 2012 and will tie in both the GC 300 #4 and #2 wells to the Murphy Oil-operated Front Runner production facility. ATP operates Clipper and presently owns a 100% working interest.





It should be noted that flow tests like this (two 48 hour tests I am told) are not common for deepwater wells. The reason is that they are very expensive to conduct. This is because the rig is still on location @ approx $1MM/day, plus they have to have vessels that collect the oil (gas is usually flared if they can get a permit) which are also very expensive. The cost to capture the oil actually exceeds the value of the oil. This is usually only done on reserviors where performance is questionable and/or the information is vital to justify the cost of final development (pipelines, platform modifications etc.). In ATP's case, it was vital because at that point in time, they were in dire straights financially and they simply HAD to know what the wells were capable of flowing before committing an additional $275MM to the development of the field.





Using the tested flow rates, a simple decline curve, a $100/bb/ oil price and several variable gas price scenarios, produces this cash flow projection for ATP's 74.5% NRI. Please note, this NRI does not include the various NPI/ORRI that were issued to vendors. There are just too many damn documents to read, and the capped amounts of each would have made this simple projection into a thesis.



drive.google.com

Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext