Mike and Colin, many thanks for some great memories! Foinaven: where exactly is the border? (and I wasn't that happy with a converted Russian icebreaker) WoS gas: the first question was: Do you really think it could be THAT big? Miller: linking up the dots to 16/8-1. Cook: every time you mentioned Fulmar pod/interpod strat trap, somebody was shouting dubious or doubtful. Buzzard: All South Vikings said you need to drill closer to the boundary faults, but the answer was always: nah, no coarse sediment supply on the highs.
Thanks for the observations and comments. I can't comment on all your points but Cook is as far away from "Doubtful & Dubious" aka Derwent & Dauntless as you can get. The former was a huge success.
@@TROVE-1stSubsurface RE: Cook: I agree! What I tried to express is that at the time there was serious conservatism towards the upside volumes in this particular play, after a number of wells had unsuccessfully tested stratigraphic upsides that didn't materialise. So when you suggested that traps could be larger compared to what was the agreed base case, you immediately got reminded of the D&D example.
Well done gents! All the information and personal ‘peeks behind the curtains’ make for compelling viewing.
Many thanks Colin. We enjoyed making this video and delivering our talk.
Mike and Colin, many thanks for some great memories!
Foinaven: where exactly is the border? (and I wasn't that happy with a converted Russian icebreaker)
WoS gas: the first question was: Do you really think it could be THAT big?
Miller: linking up the dots to 16/8-1.
Cook: every time you mentioned Fulmar pod/interpod strat trap, somebody was shouting dubious or doubtful.
Buzzard: All South Vikings said you need to drill closer to the boundary faults, but the answer was always: nah, no coarse sediment supply on the highs.
Thanks for the observations and comments. I can't comment on all your points but Cook is as far away from "Doubtful & Dubious" aka Derwent & Dauntless as you can get. The former was a huge success.
@@TROVE-1stSubsurface RE: Cook: I agree! What I tried to express is that at the time there was serious conservatism towards the upside volumes in this particular play, after a number of wells had unsuccessfully tested stratigraphic upsides that didn't materialise. So when you suggested that traps could be larger compared to what was the agreed base case, you immediately got reminded of the D&D example.