CPRNovember2013 Hurricane Energy

The Directors
Hurricane Energy plc

The Wharf
Abbey Mill Business Park
Lower Eashing
Godalming
Surrey
GU7 2QN
Attn: Robert Trice CEO
Cenkos Securities plc
6.7.8 Tokenhouse Yard
London
EC2R 7AS
Attn: Jon Fitzpatrick
19 November 2013
Gentlemen,
EVALUATION OF HURRICANE ENERGY PLC ASSETS
In response to Hurricane Energy Plcs request of November 2012 and the Letter of Engagement (LoE) dated
th
10 January 2013 with Hurricane Energy Plc (the Agreement), RPS Energy Consultants Limited (RPS)
has completed an independent evaluation of liquid hydrocarbons in UKCS, West of Shetlands licences
P.1368, P.1485 and P.1835 (the Properties) in which Hurricane Energy Plc (Hurricane, HEX, or
"Company") has an interest.
This report is issued by RPS under the appointment by Hurricane Energy Plc and is produced as part of the
Services detailed therein and subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement.
This report is addressed to the Company as defined in the Agreement (LoE) and to Cenkos Securities plc,
which became a Third Party (as defined in the LoE) through execution of Amendment 1 to the LoE. The
report is only capable of being relied on by the Company and any Third Parties under and pursuant to (and
subject to the terms of) the Agreement.
The Company may disclose the signed and dated report to third parties as contemplated by the Purpose
defined in the Agreement but in making any such disclosure the Company shall require the third party
(including any Third Parties) to accept it as confidential information only to be used or passed on to other
persons as the Company is permitted to do under the Agreement.
The report has been compiled in accordance with the guidelines on the scope and content of a Competent
Person's Report (CPR) as set out in the AIM Note for Mining and Oil & Gas Companies, for the purpose of
publication in an AIM Admission Document.
th
A CPR was prepared for Hurricane, dated 18 November 2011 and an update of that CPR was issued on
th
18 April 2013. The current update is covered by Amendment 3 to the LoE and is based on data available to
st
RPS up to February 1 2013 and information regarding Hurricanes licences and the Lancaster Appraisal
th
and Development Drilling Programme up to 18 October 2013.
Since the date of this letter, the Company has applied for and subsequently been offered a two year
extension of its P1368 License (covering Lancaster, Whirlwind, Lincoln and Strathmore) (the Offer). The
Offer is subject to the Company: (i) obtaining approval for an Early Production Scheme for Lancaster; and (ii)
drilling a well on the Lincoln prospect, by 31 December 2017. Both of these conditions would be met under
the Companys proposed work programme and the Company has accepted the Offer and is awaiting receipt
of the formal licence documentation. Other than as described in this letter, RPS understands that there have
RPS Energy
been no material changes since this date.

document are summarised as follows:
Hurricane Energy CPR

th
Changes since the 18
April 2013 CPR addressed in this
Some rescheduling of the proposed well drilling program.

Extension by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) of Hurricanes P1485 Licence
st
covering part of the Typhoon/Tempest prospect to 31 December 2013.
th
Removal of the Orkney acreage (Licence P1884) following Hurricanes submission to DECC on 11
October 2013 to fully relinquish the Licence
RPS has reviewed the Companys Admission Document and confirms that the information contained in Part I
of the Admission Document which has been extracted directly from the CPR has been presented in a
manner which is not misleading and provides a balanced view of the information contained in the CPR and
does not omit material information or disclose information selectively if to do so would be misleading to the
reader.
The Services have been performed by an RPS team of professional petroleum engineers, geoscientists and
economists and is based on the Operators data, supplied through Hurricane. All Reserves and Resources
definitions and estimates shown in this report are based on the 2007 SPE/AAPG/WPC/SPEE Petroleum
Resource Management System (PRMS).
Our approach has been to review the Operators technical interpretation of their base case geoscience and
engineering data for the field for reasonableness and to review the ranges of uncertainty for each parameter
around this base case in order to estimate a range of petroleum initially in place and recoverable. For the
prospects, Hurricanes technical interpretation of geoscience data was reviewed.
SUMMARY OF RESOURCES
Discoveries and Prospects
st
Volumes of hydrocarbons initially in place in the discoveries presented by Hurricane as of 1 October 2013
have been estimated by RPS and are summarised in Table 1 along with Contingent Resources for those
discoveries. RPS considers that no Reserves are currently attributable to the Properties.
ECV2055
RPS Energy
Contingent Resources2
Gross (100% basis) and Net

Attributable3

Attributable Resources3
Low
Best
High
1C
2C
3C
471
1056
2076
60
200
437
n/a
n/a
n/a
10
42
113
471
1056
2076
62
207
456
Oil (MMstb)
219
409
652
59
117
203
Gas (Bscf)
n/a
n/a
n/a
236
528
1017
Total (MMboe)4
219
409
652
98
205
373
Condensate (MMstb)
44
84
Oil (MMstb)
Lancaster
(Development
Pending)
In-Place Volumes1
Gas (Bscf)
4
Total (MMboe)
Whirlwind5
(Development
Unclarified
Oil Case
P.1368
5
OR
Gas/
Condensate
Case
Strathmore
(Development
on Hold)
P.1485
P.1835
Tempest/
Typhoon7
(Development
Unclarified)
Total8
(Whirlwind Oil Case)
Total
(Whirlwind
Gas/Condensate Case)5
Notes
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
18
712
1310
2067
437
808
1303
Total (MMboe)4
137
268
445
91
179
301
Oil (MMstb)
131
182
246
20
32
57
Gas (Bscf)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Gas (Bscf)
Total (MMboe)4
131
182
246
20
32
57
Oil (MMstb)
795
1307
1961
26
98
Gas (Bscf)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Total (MMboe)4
795
1307
1961
26
98
Oil (MMstb)
1616
2954
4935
147
375
795
Gas (Bscf)
n/a
n/a
n/a
246
570
1130
Total (MMboe)4
1616
2954
4935
188
470
984
Oil/Condensate
(MMstb)
1397
2545
4283
106
302
677
Gas (Bscf)
712
1310
2067
447
850
1416
Total (MMboe)4
1534
2855
4797
181
444
912
In-place volumes are all quoted on an on block basis.
Resources are all quoted on an on block basis and before technical and economic limit tests.
Hurricanes working interest in Licences P.1368, P.1485 and P.1835 is 100% and therefore Gross (100% basis) and Net
Attributable volumes are the same.
Conversion used for dry gas is1 boe = 6000 scf. Wet gas in-place has been calculated from dry gas in-place estimate plus an
initial condensate in-place estimate.
Well test results from 205/21a-5 demonstrate the presence of hydrocarbons but the nature of the discovered hydrocarbons is
unclear. For this reason volumes have been quoted for either oil or gas/condensate.
Gas in place is for wet gas while recoverable gas is for dry gas.
Arithmetic addition of Tempest and Typhoon in-place volumes at Low, Best and High.
PRMS recommends that for reporting purposes, assessment results should not incorporate statistical aggregation beyond the
field, property or project level. The total Resources are therefore the product of arithmetic addition and as such are not
statistically correct. As a result the total Low In-place and 1C resources may be very conservative estimates and the total
high In-place volumes and 3C resources very optimistic assessments.
st
Table 1 Summary of Discovered In-Place Volumes and Contingent Resources as of 1 October

2013
ECV2055
RPS Energy
Valuation
Economic valuation of reserves and resources are linked to a long term price forecast for Brent. The RPS
Base Case price used for all valuations presented in this report is given in Table 2.
Year
Lancaster Base Case

(US$/stb, MOD)
2013
99.30
2014
93.95
2015
89.73
2016
90.71
2017
92.62
2018
94.57
2019
95.95
2020
97.98
2021
100.05
2022
103.16
2023
105.31
2024
107.50
2025
109.74
2026
2027
112.02
114.35
2028
117.23
2029
+2% p.a.
Table 2 Lancaster Base Case Oil Price Forecast

The post-tax Net Present Values (NPV) of Hurricanes Resources in Lancaster in Money of the Day (MoD),
applying the Base Case price forecasts, are shown in Table 3. The effective date of the valuation in this
st
report is 1 October 2013.
Post Tax Net Present Value
1
2
Net Hurricane Share, (US$ / UK Million , MOD)

Discount Rate:
0.00%
5.00%
7.50%
10.00%
12.50%
15.00%
Economic
Limit
Conventional Only Case

1C
2C
3C
-368
-382
-384
-383
-381
-376
2021
-230
-239
-240
-240
-238
-235
2021
954
557
412
294
198
120
2027
596
348
258
184
124
75
2027
2,963
1,690
1,277
962
719
529
2037
1,852
1,056
798
601
449
331
2037
-268
-290
-307
-318
2031
Base Case (5 year lease and buy out option)

1C
2C
-181
-240
-113
-150
-167
-181
-192
-199
2031
5,285
2,621
1,860
1,323
938
658
2047
3,303
1,638
1,163
827
586
411
2047
16,109
6,219
4,090
2,759
1,894
1,312
2063
10,068
3,887
2,556
Note 1: Valuation is expressed on a standalone tax basis.
Note 2: US$ / UK conversion rate is 1.6.
1,724
1,184
820
2063
3C
st
Table 3 Lancaster Valuation as at 1 October 2013
ECV2055
RPS Energy
Following the economic valuation Lancaster Contingent Resources (post-economic limit test) are
summarised in Table 4.
Economic Limit
Gross Resources
1
(100% Basis)
(MMstb)
Nett Attributable
2
Resources
(MMstb)

1C
2021
15.77
15.77
2C
2027
52.23
52.23
3C
2037
118.32
118.32

1C
2031
56.26
56.26
2C
2047
190.49
190.49
3C
2063
413.32
413.32
Note 1: After economic limit test.
Note 2: Company's working interest share in Gross Resources
st
Table 4 Lancaster Contingent Resources as at 1 October 2013
Prospective Resources
Hurricane also has a prospect inventory which has been reviewed by RPS. The potentially recoverable
volumes in the event of discovery and/or confirmation of moveable oil for key prospects are summarised in
Table 5, along with Prospective Resources for the Properties.
ECV2055
RPS Energy
In-Place Volumes1
Prospective Resources2

Attributable

Attributable Resources3
Best
High
Mean
GPoS
(%)
14
53
142
62
9.0
279
11
51
142
66
n/a
n/a
45
231
715
320
575
279
19
90
261
119
Low
Best
High
Mean
Low
272
882
2027
1047
Oil(MMstb)
49
225
575
Gas, (Bscf)
n/a
n/a
Total, (MMboe)
49
225
Lancaster,( MMstb)
5
Whirlwind
25.06
OR5
P.1368
Condensate (MMstb)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
20
59
27
Gas (Bscf)
158
732
1831
890
77
360
935
448
31
148
384
184
17
80
215
101
Lincoln, MMstb
317
686
1266
750
44
150
339
164
13.28
Typhoon, MMstb
79
497
3014
1278
16
149
1266
383
16.0
0.02
Total, MMboe
P.1485
P.1835
Total, MMboe
(Whirlwind Oil Case)
Total (Unrisked if all

successful)9
3354

successful)9
728
Total (Unrisked given at

least one success)10
880

least one success)10
242
11
Total, MMboe
(Whirlwind Gas/ Condensate
Case)
420
Total (Risked)
115

successful)8
3259

successful)8
710

least one success)9
830

least one success)9
232
Total (Risked)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
47.812
Total (Risked)
10
Notes
1
2
11
397
10
Total (Risked)
0.02
47.812
111
In-place volumes are all quoted on an on block basis.

Resources are all quoted on an on-block basis. Hurricanes working interest in Licences P.1368, P.1485 and
P.1835 is 100% and therefore Gross (100% basis) and Net Attributable volumes are the same.
Hurricanes working interest in Licences P.1368, P.1485 and P.1835 is 100% and therefore Gross (100% basis)
and Net Attributable Resources are the same.
The Lancaster Prospective STOIIP/Resources are the sum of estimated Prospective STOIIP/Resources in the
Basement and the Commodore Formation. The GPoS quoted is the consolidated chance of success assuming
both are successful. The basement GPoS is 10% and for the Commodore Formation GPoS is 90%.
Well test results from 205/21a-5 demonstrate the presence of hydrocarbons but the nature of the discovered
hydrocarbons is unclear. For this reason volumes have been quoted for either oil or gas/condensate.
The Whirlwind Prospective STOIIP or wet GIIP and Resources are the sum of estimated Prospective STOIIP wet
GIIP and Resources in the Basement and the Valhall Limestone. The GPoS quoted is the consolidated chance
of success assuming both are successful. The basement GPoS is 50% and for the Valhall Limestone GPoS is
50%.
Conversion used for dry gas is 1 boe = 6000 scf. Wet gas in-place has been calculated from dry gas in-place
estimate plus an initial condensate in-place estimate.
The Lincoln Prospective STOIIP/Resources are the sum of estimated Prospective STOIIP/Resources in the
Basement assuming both conventional and unconventional volumetrics. The GPoS quoted is the consolidated
chance of success assuming both are successful. The conventional basement GPoS is 49% and for the
unconventional basement GPoS is 27%.
The arithmetic sum of the unrisked means for each prospect would represent success in Lancaster, Whirlwind,
Lincoln and Typhoon. The chance of this occurring is the product of the GPoS for each prospect.
The total unrisked mean represents the expected value (statistical mean) if there is at least one success (see
Section 4.3).
The total risked mean is the sum of the risked means for each prospect and represents the expected value taking
into account success or failure in each prospect.
The overall GPoS is the statistically consolidated probability of at least one success (see Appendix-C)
Table 5 - Summary of Undiscovered In-Place Volumes and Prospective Resources
ECV2055
RPS Energy
QUALIFICATIONS
RPS is an independent consultancy specialising in petroleum reservoir evaluation and economic analysis.
RPS is independent of Hurricane Energy plc and is remunerated by way of a fee that is not linked to the
admission or value of Hurricane Energy Plc. Mr Gordon Taylor, Director, Head of Subsurface, for RPS
Energy, has supervised the evaluation. Mr Taylor has over 30 years experience in upstream oil and gas and
is a Chartered Engineer and Chartered Geologist.
Other RPS employees involved in this work hold at least a Masters degree in geology, geophysics,
petroleum engineering or a related subject or have at least five years of relevant experience in the practice of
geology, geophysics or petroleum engineering.
BASIS OF OPINION
The results presented herein reflect our informed judgement based on accepted standards of professional
investigation, but is subject to generally recognised uncertainties associated with the interpretation of
geological, geophysical and engineering data. The Services have been conducted within our understanding
of petroleum legislation, taxation and other regulations that currently apply to these interests. However, RPS
is not in a position to attest to the property title, financial interest relationships or encumbrances related to the
properties.
Our estimates of resources and value are based on the data set available to, and provided by Hurricane. We
have accepted, without independent verification, the accuracy and completeness of these data.
As the fields are yet to be developed and there are no facilities in place on the blocks to date, a site visit was
not deemed necessary.
The report represents RPS best professional judgement and should not be considered a guarantee or
prediction of results. It should be understood that any evaluation, particularly one involving exploration and
future petroleum developments, may be subject to significant variations over short periods of time as new
information becomes available. As stated in the Agreement, RPS cannot and does not guarantee the
accuracy or correctness of any interpretation made by it of any of the data, documentation and information
provided by the Company or others in accordance with the Agreement. RPS does not warrant or guarantee,
through the Services, this report or otherwise, any geological or commercial outcome.
In preparing the Report RPS has used reasonable skill and reasonable care to be expected of a consultant
carrying out services of the type set out in the Letter of Engagement
RPS is responsible for this report as part of the AIM Admission Document and declares that it has taken all
reasonable care to ensure that the information contained in the CPR is, to the best of its knowledge, in
accordance with the facts and contains no omission likely to affect its import.
RPS hereby consents to the publication and use of: (i) the CPR; and (ii) its name, by Hurricane, in both
electronic and paper form, including the Hurricane website, in the form and context in which it appears. As at
the date of this letter, RPS has not withdrawn this consent.
This report relates specifically and solely to the subject assets and is conditional upon various assumptions
that are described herein. The report, of which this letter forms part, must therefore be read in its entirety.
This report may only be used in accordance with purpose stated in the Agreement (which is for its inclusion
in the Admission Document), except with permission from RPS. The report must not be reproduced or
redistributed, in whole or in part, to any other person than the addressees or published, in whole or in part,
for any other purpose without the express written consent of RPS. The reproduction or publication of any
excerpts is not permitted without the express written permission of RPS
Yours faithfully,
RPS Energy Consultants Limited
Gordon Taylor
Director, Head of Subsurface
ECV2055
RPS Energy
Evaluation of
West of Shetland Assets
on behalf of

October 2013
This report relates specifically and solely to the subject assets and is conditional upon various assumptions
that are described herein. This report must, therefore, be read in its entirety.
Our estimates of potential reserves, resources, unrisked and risked values are based on data provided by the
Company. We have accepted, without independent verification, the accuracy and completeness of these data.
All interpretations and conclusions presented herein are opinions based on inferences from geological,
geophysical, engineering or other data. The report represents RPS Energy Consultants Ltds best
professional judgement and should not be considered a guarantee of results. Our liability is limited solely to
Hurricane Energy plc as covered in the Letter of Engagement between Hurricane Energy plc and RPS Energy
Consultants Ltd.
RPS Energy
14 Cornhill, London, EC3V 3ND
T +44 (0)20 7280 3200 F +44 (0)20 7283 9248
E rpsenergy@rpsgroup.com
W www.rpsgroup.com
ECV2055
RPS Energy
Evaluation West of Shetland Assets

on behalf of
DISCLAIMER
The opinions and interpretations presented in this report represent our best technical interpretation
of the data made available to us. However, due to the uncertainty inherent in the estimation of all
sub-surface parameters, we cannot and do not guarantee the accuracy or correctness of any
interpretation and we shall not, except in the case of gross or wilful negligence on our part, be liable
or responsible for any loss, cost damages or expenses incurred or sustained by anyone resulting
from any interpretation made by any of our officers, agents or employees.
Except for the provision of professional services on a fee basis, RPS Energy Consultants Ltd does
not have a commercial arrangement with any other person or company involved in the interests that
are the subject of this report.
COPYRIGHT
RPS Energy Consultants Ltd
The material presented in this report is confidential. This report has been prepared for the exclusive
use of Hurricane Energy plc and shall not be distributed or made available to any other company or
person without the knowledge and written consent of Hurricane Energy plc or RPS Energy
Consultants Ltd.
REPORT NUMBER:
ECV1906
DATE
October 2013
REPORT TITLE: Evaluation West of Shetland Assets

on behalf of Hurricane Energy plc
PROJECT REFERENCE:
ECV2055
PREPARED:
CHECKED:
APPROVED:
NAME
JHB, MW, IL, IG, GJB, AL,

EJ, EE,
IL
GT
SENT
EDITION
DESCRIPTION
COMMENT
October 2013
FILE LOCATION:
ECV2055
Update
\\lon-abl-02\T\Valuations\ECV2055 HEX CPR September 2013\Report_October2013
RPS Energy
Table of Contents
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1
2.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 4
2.1
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 4
2.2
Fractured Reservoirs ............................................................................................................... 4
2.3
An Overview of Hurricanes Exploration and Development Strategy ...................................... 6
3.
SUMMARY OF ASSETS ................................................................................................................. 7

3.1
Offshore Licences .................................................................................................................... 7
3.1.1 Licence Terms and Commitments ..................................................................................................... 8
3.1.1.1
P.1368 (Frontier Licence).......................................................................................................... 8
3.1.1.2
P.1485 (Frontier Licence).......................................................................................................... 8
3.1.1.3
P.1835 (Traditional) .................................................................................................................. 9
4.
RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION.................................................................................................... 10
4.1
General .................................................................................................................................. 10
4.2
PRMS Reserves and Resources Classification .................................................................... 10
4.3
Risk assessment ................................................................................................................... 10
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.4
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.5
Contingent Resources ..................................................................................................................... 11

Prospective Resources .................................................................................................................... 11
Classification of Assets .......................................................................................................... 11

Lancaster ......................................................................................................................................... 11
Whirlwind ......................................................................................................................................... 11
Typhoon and Tempest ..................................................................................................................... 11
Strathmore ....................................................................................................................................... 12
Arithmetic vs statistical aggregation ...................................................................................... 12
5.
DATABASE.................................................................................................................................... 13
5.1
Seismic Data.......................................................................................................................... 13
5.2
Well Data ............................................................................................................................... 13
5.3
Other Data ............................................................................................................................. 14
6.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION .......................................................................................................... 15

6.1
Regional Setting .................................................................................................................... 15
6.2
Fractured Basement Analogues ............................................................................................ 15
7.
LANCASTER DISCOVERY ........................................................................................................... 17

7.1
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 17
7.2
Geophysical Interpretation and Mapping ............................................................................... 18
7.2.1
7.2.2
7.2.3
7.2.4
7.3
Data Set........................................................................................................................................... 18
Well Data ......................................................................................................................................... 19
Interpretation and Mapping .............................................................................................................. 19
Depth Conversion ............................................................................................................................ 21
Lancaster Geological Model .................................................................................................. 22
7.3.1 Reservoir Properties ........................................................................................................................ 24

7.3.2 Basement Reservoir ........................................................................................................................ 24
7.3.2.1
Commodore Reservoir ............................................................................................................ 26
7.4
Lancaster Volumetrics ........................................................................................................... 26
7.4.1 Contacts .......................................................................................................................................... 26

7.4.2 STOIIP Inputs and Results .............................................................................................................. 28
7.4.2.1
Basement Formation ............................................................................................................... 28
7.4.2.2
Commodore Formation ........................................................................................................... 29
7.5
Reservoir Engineering ........................................................................................................... 30
7.5.1 PVT/Fluids Data............................................................................................................................... 30

7.5.2 Rock Properties/SCAL ..................................................................................................................... 30
7.5.3 Well Tests ........................................................................................................................................ 30
7.5.3.1
Well Test Analysis................................................................................................................... 31
7.5.4 Lancaster Production Performance Analysis ................................................................................... 32
7.5.5 Hurricane Further Appraisal and Development Plan........................................................................ 34
7.5.6 Recoverable Volumes...................................................................................................................... 36
7.6
7.6.1
7.6.2
ECV2055
Lancaster Drilling and Completion Design ............................................................................ 38

Horizontal Drilling and Managed Pressure Drilling........................................................................... 39
Completion Design .......................................................................................................................... 40
iii
RPS Energy
7.7
8.
Lancaster Risk Assessment .................................................................................................. 41
WHIRLWIND.................................................................................................................................. 42
8.1
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 42
8.2
8.3
Geological Model ................................................................................................................... 43
8.3.1
8.4
Reservoir Properties ........................................................................................................................ 43
Whirlwind Volumetrics ........................................................................................................... 44
8.4.1
8.4.2
8.5
Contacts .......................................................................................................................................... 44
Hydrocarbons In-Place Inputs and Results ...................................................................................... 44
8.5.1
8.5.2
8.5.3
8.5.4
8.6
PVT/Fluids Data............................................................................................................................... 46
Rock Properties/SCAL ..................................................................................................................... 47
Well Tests ........................................................................................................................................ 48
Production Performance Analysis .................................................................................................... 49
Recoverable Volumes ........................................................................................................... 49
8.6.1
8.6.2
8.7
9.
Volatile Oil ....................................................................................................................................... 49

Gas Condensate .............................................................................................................................. 51
Whirlwind Risk Assessment .................................................................................................. 52
LINCOLN PROSPECT .................................................................................................................. 53

9.1
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 53
9.2
9.3
Geological Model ................................................................................................................... 53
9.4
Lincoln Volumetrics ............................................................................................................... 53
9.4.1
9.4.2
9.5
Contacts .......................................................................................................................................... 53
STOIIP Inputs and Results .............................................................................................................. 54
9.5.1
9.5.2
9.5.3
9.5.4
PVT/Fluids Data............................................................................................................................... 55
Rock Properties/SCAL ..................................................................................................................... 56
Production Performance Analysis .................................................................................................... 56
Recoverable Volumes...................................................................................................................... 56
10.
TEMPEST DISCOVERY AND TYPHOON PROSPECT ........................................................... 59
10.1 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 59
10.2 Geophysical Interpretation and Mapping ............................................................................... 59
10.3 Geological Model ................................................................................................................... 60
10.4 Volumetrics ............................................................................................................................ 61
10.4.1
10.4.2
10.5
10.5.1
10.5.2
10.5.3
10.5.4
10.5.5
10.5.6
10.6
Contacts ...................................................................................................................................... 61
STOIIP Inputs and Results .......................................................................................................... 63
PVT/Fluids Data .......................................................................................................................... 65
Rock Properties/SCAL ................................................................................................................ 66
Well Tests.................................................................................................................................... 66
Production Performance Analysis ............................................................................................... 66
Recoverable Volumes ................................................................................................................. 68
Typhoon and Tempest Risk Assessment .............................................................................. 68
11.
STRATHMORE OIL DISCOVERY ............................................................................................ 70
11.1 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 70
11.2 Geophysical Interpretation and Mapping ............................................................................... 70
11.3 Geological Model ................................................................................................................... 71
11.4 Strathmore Volumetrics ......................................................................................................... 71
11.4.1
11.4.2
11.5
Contacts ...................................................................................................................................... 71
STOIIP Inputs and Results .......................................................................................................... 73
11.5.1
Recent Studies ............................................................................................................................ 73
11.5.2
PVT/Fluid Data ............................................................................................................................ 74
11.5.3
Rock Properties/SCAL ................................................................................................................ 74
11.5.4
Well Tests.................................................................................................................................... 76
11.5.4.1 205/26a-3 DST1/1A ................................................................................................................ 76
11.5.4.2 205/26a-3 DST2...................................................................................................................... 77
11.5.4.3 Well Test Analysis................................................................................................................... 77
11.5.5
11.5.6
Recoverable Volumes ................................................................................................................. 78
11.6
ECV2055
Strathmore Risk Assessment ................................................................................................ 80
iv
RPS Energy
12.
LANCASTER COSTS AND FACILITIES ................................................................................... 81
12.1 Development Cases - Discussion ......................................................................................... 81
12.1.1
Capital Costs (Capex) ................................................................................................................. 82
12.1.1.1 Drilling and Completion Design ............................................................................................... 82
12.1.1.2 Drilling and Completion Costs ................................................................................................. 83
12.1.1.3 Facilities .................................................................................................................................. 84
12.1.2
Development Cases .................................................................................................................... 86
12.1.3
Production Vessel Life ................................................................................................................. 87
12.1.4
Operating Costs (Opex) .............................................................................................................. 87
12.1.5
Decommissioning Costs (Abex) .................................................................................................. 88
13.
SUMMARY OF COMMERCIAL ASSUMPTIONS AND VALUATION ....................................... 89
13.1 Fiscal Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 89
13.2 Tax Losses ............................................................................................................................ 89
13.3 Economic Assumptions ......................................................................................................... 89
13.3.1
13.3.2
13.3.3
13.3.4
13.3.5
13.3.6
Oil Price ....................................................................................................................................... 89

Gas Price..................................................................................................................................... 90
Valuation Date ............................................................................................................................. 90
Development Cases .................................................................................................................... 91
Lease Costs ................................................................................................................................ 91
Summary of Valuation ................................................................................................................. 92
APPENDIX A:
LANCASTER WELL TEST ANALYSIS RESULTS - WELL 205/21A-4Z (DST2) ...... 94
APPENDIX B:
DEVELOPMENT CASE INPUT SHEETS ................................................................. 97
APPENDIX C: STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 124

1. Arithmetic vs. statistical aggregation ....................................................................................... 124
2. Risked and Unrisked Aggregated Prospective Resources ..................................................... 125
3. Consolidated Chance of Success ........................................................................................... 128
3.1.
3.2.
Independent events ....................................................................................................................... 128

Partially dependent events ............................................................................................................ 128
APPENDIX D:
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................. 130
APPENDIX E:
SPE/WPC/AAPG/SPEE RESERVE/RESOURCE DEFINITIONS ........................... 136
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Basement Reservoirs of the World ..................................................................................... 5
Figure 3.1 Hurricanes Offshore Licences ............................................................................................ 7
Figure 3.2 Adjustments to P.1485, March 2013 (supplied by Hurricane) ............................................ 9
Figure 6.1 Geological setting of Hurricanes West of Shetland interests ........................................... 15
Figure 7.1 Seismic section across Lancaster discovery .................................................................... 17
Figure 7.2 Geo-seismic cross-section showing location and basic hydrocarbon system for Lancaster
....................................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 7.3 Top Basement amplitude extraction showing brights on the highs and dims on flanks 19
Figure 7.4 Random seismic line through wells 205/21a-4/4z and 205/21-1A .................................... 20
Figure 7.5 Map showing Ikon fault pattern in the vicinity of 205/21a-4 .............................................. 21
Figure 7.6 Comparison of results of Passive (left) and Aggressive (right) Ant Tracking (shown in
shades of grey and blue), and Ikon Coherency Analysis, shown in colour ................................... 21
Figure 7.7 3D view and cross section showing the RPS fault and fracture lineations extracted using
Ant-tracking .................................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 7.8 Breakdown of STOIIP Classification ................................................................................. 26
Figure 7.9 Lancaster Basement Depth map showing Closure Areas ................................................ 27
Figure 7.10 Inclined Well Inflow Model............................................................................................... 33
Figure 7.11 Horizontal Well Inflow Model ........................................................................................... 33
Figure 7.12 Production Profile for Lancaster Conventional Only case with 80% uptime ................... 37
Figure 7.13: Production Profile Forecast for Lancaster Base Case (Conventional + Unconventional
Main + East) with 80% uptime ....................................................................................................... 37
Figure 8.1 Structural relationship of Whirlwind to Lancaster .............................................................. 42
Figure 8.2 Whirlwind Basement Depth Structure map showing closure areas .................................. 43
Figure 8.3 A & B A: Schematic of relationship of Valhall to Basement; B: Valhall depth structure map
with closure areas .......................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 8.4 Whirlwind 205/21a-5 well measured bottom hole pressure history .................................. 48
ECV2055
RPS Energy
Figure 8.5 Log-log plot of final build-up .............................................................................................. 49

Figure 9.1 Lincoln Prospect Basement Depth Structure with closure areas ....................................... 54
Figure 9.2 Production Forecast for Lincoln (Conventional + Unconventional) with 80% uptime ....... 57
Figure 9.3 Production Forecast for Lincoln for Conventional Only case with 80% uptime ................ 58
Figure 10.1 Hurricanes Typhoon Flank model ................................................................................... 60
Figure 10.2 The Sunah Field, Yemen as a possible analogue for Typhoon prospect ........................ 61
Figure 10.3 Tempest Rona Sandstone Depth Structure map with mapped closure indicated .......... 62
Figure 10.4 Schematic showing rationale for Typhoon Flank volumes .............................................. 63
Figure 10.5 Typhoon Basement Depth Structure map ....................................................................... 63
Figure 11.1 Seismic Section through the Strathmore Field showing poor quality of the reservoir
reflectors (Yellow OBS) ................................................................................................................ 71
Figure 11.2 Strathmore Formation Pressure plot ............................................................................... 72
Figure 11.3 Top Otterbank Sandstone depth map ............................................................................. 72
Figure 11.4 Strathmore Production Profiles ....................................................................................... 80
Figure 13.1 Lancaster development options ...................................................................................... 91
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Current Equity Interests of Hurricane (Offshore).................................................................. 8
Table 5.1 Summary of well data ......................................................................................................... 13
Table 7.1 Residual depth errors at wells after depth conversion (source: Equipoise Whirlwind postdrill Depth Conversion report, May 2011) ..................................................................................... 22
Table 7.2 Hurricane estimates of fault zone and pseudo-matrix porosity ........................................ 25
Table 7.3 Lancaster Conventional Basement Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case ................ 28
Table 7.4 RPS Estimated Conventional Basement STOIIP in Lancaster (100% Basis) ................... 28
Table 7.5 Lancaster Unconventional Basement Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case ............. 28
Table 7.6 RPS Estimated Discovered Unconventional Basement STOIIP in Lancaster (100% Basis)
....................................................................................................................................................... 29
Table 7.7 RPS Estimated Undiscovered Unconventional Basement STOIIP in Lancaster (100%
Basis) ............................................................................................................................................. 29
Table 7.8 Lancaster Commodore Conventional Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case ............. 29
Table 7.9 RPS Estimated Commodore Conventional STOIIP in Lancaster (100% Basis) ................ 29
Table 7.10 Lancaster Commodore Unconventional Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case ....... 30
Table 7.11 RPS Estimated Commodore Unconventional Undiscovered STOIIP in Lancaster (100%
Basis) ............................................................................................................................................. 30
Table 7.12 Lancaster PVT Properties ................................................................................................ 30
Table 7.13 Initial rates (Barrels of oil per day) expected for Lancaster .............................................. 34
Table 7.14 Phase 1 and 2 Development Schedules .......................................................................... 35
Table 7.15 Lancaster Main Conventional Only Case Contingent Resources with 80% uptime ......... 36
Table 7.16 Lancaster Estimated Contingent Resources with 80% uptime ........................................ 36
Table 7.17 - Prospective Resources for Lancaster with 80% uptime and GPoS of 10% for the
Basement and 90% for Commodore ............................................................................................. 38
Table 8.1 Whirlwind Conventional Basement Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case ................. 44
Table 8.2 RPS Estimated Conventional Basement STOIIP in Whirlwind (100% Basis) .................... 44
Table 8.3 RPS Estimated Conventional Basement WGIIP in Whirlwind (100% Basis) ..................... 45
Table 8.4 Whirlwind Unconventional Basement Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case ............. 45
Table 8.5 RPS Estimated Undiscovered Unconventional Basement STOIIP in Whirlwind (100%
Basis) ............................................................................................................................................. 45
Table 8.6 RPS Estimated Undiscovered Unconventional Basement WGIIP in Whirlwind (100%
Basis) ............................................................................................................................................. 45
Table 8.7 Whirlwind Limestone Conventional Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case ................ 45
Table 8.8 RPS Estimated Conventional Limestone STOIIP in Whirlwind (100% Basis) ................... 46
Table 8.9 RPS Estimated Conventional Limestone WGIIP in Whirlwind (100% Basis) .................... 46
Table 8.10 Whirlwind Limestone Unconventional Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case .......... 46
Table 8.11 RPS Estimated Limestone Undiscovered Unconventional STOIIP in Whirlwind (100%
Basis) ............................................................................................................................................. 46
Table 8.12 RPS Estimated Limestone Undiscovered Unconventional WGIIP in Whirlwind (100%
Basis) ............................................................................................................................................. 46
Table 8.13 Whirlwind Oil Contingent Resources (Oil Case) ................................................................. 50
Table 8.14 Whirlwind Associated Gas Contingent Resources (Oil Case) ......................................... 50
ECV2055
vi
RPS Energy
Table 8.15 Whirlwind Oil Prospective Resources (Oil Case), with a GPoS of 50% for both Basement
and Limestone ............................................................................................................................... 50
Table 8.16 Whirlwind Associated Gas Prospective Resources (Oil Case), with a GPoS of 50% for
both Basement and Limestone ...................................................................................................... 51
Table 8.17 Whirlwind Gas Contingent Resources (Gas Condensate Case) ..................................... 51
Table 8.18 Whirlwind Condensate Contingent Resources (Gas Condensate Case) ........................ 51
Table 8.19 Whirlwind Gas Prospective Resources (Gas Condensate Case), with a GPoS of 50% for
both Basement and Limestone ...................................................................................................... 52
Table 8.20 Whirlwind Condensate Prospective Resources (Gas Condensate Case) ....................... 52
Table 9.1 Lincoln Conventional Basement Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case ..................... 54
Table 9.2 RPS Estimated Conventional Basement Undiscovered On Block STOIIP in Lincoln (100%
Basis) ............................................................................................................................................. 54
Table 9.3 Lincoln Unconventional Basement Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case ................. 55
Table 9.4 RPS Estimated Unconventional Basement Undiscovered On Block STOIIP in Lincoln
(100% Basis) ................................................................................................................................. 55
Table 9.5 Lincoln Prospective Resources with 80% up time, with a GPoS of 27% ........................... 56
Table 9.6 Lincoln Conventional Only Prospective Resources with 80% up time, with a GPoS of 27%
....................................................................................................................................................... 57
Table 10.1 Tempest Rona Sandstone Conventional Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case...... 64
Table 10.2 RPS Estimated STOIIP in Tempest (100% Basis) ........................................................... 64
Table 10.3 Typhoon Conventional Basement Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case ................ 64
Table 10.4 RPS Estimated Conventional Basement STOIIP in Typhoon (100% Basis) ................... 64
Table 10.5 Typhoon Unconventional Basement Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case ............ 64
Table 10.6 RPS Estimated Unconventional Basement Undiscovered STOIIP in Typhoon (100%
Basis) ............................................................................................................................................. 64
Table 10.7 Typhoon/Tempest PVT Samples ..................................................................................... 65
Table 10.8 Senergy Typhoon Permeability Values ............................................................................ 67
Table 10.9 Typhoon/Tempest Contingent Resources (Conventional Only)....................................... 68
Table 10.10 Typhoon Flank Prospective Resources, with a GPoS of 16% ....................................... 68
Table 11.1 Strathmore Otterbank Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case ................................... 73
Table 11.2 RPS Estimated Otterbank STOIIP in Strathmore (100% Basis) ...................................... 73
Table 11.3 Strathmore PVT Properties .............................................................................................. 74
Table 11.4 Field Production/Injection Controls .................................................................................. 78
Table 11.5 Well Production/Injection Start Dates ............................................................................... 79
Table 11.6 Strathmore Contingent Resource On Block Volumes (MMstb)........................................ 79
Table 12.1 Metocean Data Comparison between North Sea and West of Shetland ......................... 82
Table 12.2 Hurricanes Drilling Durations and Cost Estimates .......................................................... 83
Table 12.3 Lancaster Development Costs ......................................................................................... 85
Table 12.4 Lancaster Operating Costs............................................................................................... 85
Table 12.5 Lancaster: Typical Pipeline Specifications ....................................................................... 86
Table 12.6 - FPSO Operating Cost Estimate ........................................................................................ 88
Table 13.1 RPS Brent forecast (2013 Q3) .......................................................................................... 89
Table 13.2 Lancaster estimated price differentials to Brent ............................................................... 90
Table 13.3 Lancaster oil price forecast .............................................................................................. 90
Table 13.4 Summary of FPSO lease costs ........................................................................................ 92
Table 13.5 Summary Lancaster Valuationof values ........................................................................... 92
Table 13.6 Summary of Contingent Resources ................................................................................. 93
ECV2055
vii
RPS Energy
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hurricane Energy plc (Hurricane of "HEX") engaged RPS Energy Consultants Limited (RPS) to
prepare an updated Competent Persons Report (CPR) on their offshore assets West of Shetland, UK
for inclusion in a prospectus in association with an Initial Public Offering. RPS prepared previous
th
th
CPRs for Hurricane, dated 18 November 2011 and 18 April 2013. The update in this current report
st
is based on data available up to 1 February 2013 and information regarding licences and the
th
Lancaster Appraisal and Development Drilling Programme available up to 18 October 2013. The
st
effective date for the valuation of Contingent Resources presented herein is 1 October 2013.
Below is a summary of the resources evaluated by RPS in four discovered oil accumulations,
Lancaster, Whirlwind, Typhoon/Tempest and Strathmore and one undrilled prospect, Lincoln.
Lancaster
Lancaster is an oil field and is the most advanced in terms of development planning. In common with
Whirlwind and probably Lincoln, its main reservoir is a highly fractured basement rock that owes its
hydrocarbon storage capacity and productivity to the presence of permeable fractures.
The field is located in blocks 205/21a, 205/22a and 205/26b within licence P.1368. It lies on a
basement high with four-way dip closure in the Outer Rona Terrace, on the Rona Ridge approximately
20 km to the SE of the Schiehallion/Foinaven fields. Although well 205/21-1a, drilled in 1974,
penetrated the south flank of the structure it was the Hurricane wells, 205/21a-4 and sidetrack
205/21a-4z, drilled in 2010, that confirmed the presence of oil in the basement. A DST was performed
on 205/21a-4z which resulted in flow rate of 2,200 bopd. As a result, Lancaster is classified as
Contingent Resources Development Pending.
RPS evaluated Hurricane's seismic interpretation, and log analysis and found both to be satisfactory.
RPS reviewed the supporting documentation for the fracture porosity in conjunction with determining
our own estimation of fracture density from seismic data. In essence the two methodologies gave
similar values for fracture porosity. Hurricane proposed two types of fracture porosity, Fault Zones
and Pseudo-matrix which RPS consider to be reasonable and have adopted.
Within the Lancaster structure Hurricane have identified two types of accumulation defined as
conventional and unconventional, the former defined by the mapped structural closure. The later is
based on oil that was identified in the 205/21a-4 well below the mapped closure suggesting a
mechanism for a possibly much larger trap. Within both the conventional and unconventional a
range of possible contacts were defined as input to the volumetric calculation.
A probabilistic approach was adopted to generate a range of in place volumes for the discovered
STOIIP in the conventional accumulation. Ranges of discovered and undiscovered STOIIP were
also estimated for the unconventional accumulation. In addition to the basement volumes a small
accumulation has been evaluated in the overlying Commodore sandstone reservoir. The results for all
are quoted in the Tables 1 and 5 of the covering letter.
Based on analogue field studies, RPS has estimated a range of recovery factors for both the
conventional and unconventional reservoir sections. This generated a range of technical resources
which are quoted in Table 1 of the covering letter. Based on these technical resources, Hurricanes
proposed development plan and data from the 205/21a-4z well test, three sets of production forecasts
were developed.
Hurricane propose to develop the field with subsea production wells, drilled from several drill centres,
tied back to a new build, FPSO (Floating Production Storage and Offloading) unit. First oil is
anticipated to be in 2019. It is assumed that the oil would be exported via shuttle tanker and that there
would be a gas import/export pipeline. It is proposed that the development be phased with a 2 year
Phase 1 production period where reservoir pressures are monitored and a surveillance well regularly
tested. If by the end of 2020 the field performance confirms the unconventional oil is present and is
being drained then Phase 2 will be initiated. This would require the installation of additional
processing equipment on the FPSO and additional wells.
The costs, both OPEX and CAPEX, associated with the plan were reviewed and agreed and were
input into the RPS economic model along with the range of production forecasts. At the Base Case
2C Contingent Resource level Lancaster has a NPV10 of $1,219MM. The full results are quoted in
Tables 3 and 4 with our oil price assumptions in Table 2 of the covering letter.
ECV2055
RPS Energy
Whirlwind
The Whirlwind discovery is located about 10km north of Lancaster and is also in licence P.1368. The
discovery well 205/21a-5, drilled in September 2010, penetrated 138 m of fractured basement and
132 m of overlying Limestone. The well was re-entered and subsequently tested, about a year after
drilling due to weather constraints. The results of the flow test proved to be ambiguous in that it was
not clear if the recovered hydrocarbons were volatile oil or gas condensate.
The RPS evaluation approach was as described for Lancaster with the same fractured basement
rationale adopted. Again there were volumes assigned to conventional and unconventional
reservoir sections. Both the fractured basement and limestone reservoirs were evaluated for in place
volumes and, due to the ambiguity of the well test in 205/21a-5, an oil case, STOIIP, and wet gas
case, WGIIP, were calculated.
Contingent and Prospective Resources were determined for both oil and gas cases with the results in
Tables 1 and 5. Whirlwind is currently classified as Contingent Resources Development
Unclarified/On Hold.
Lincoln
Lincoln is an undrilled prospect located about 9km SW of Lancaster on the Rona Ridge, also in licence
P.1368. In common with Lancaster the proposed reservoir in Lincoln is fractured basement. The
mapped reservoir is about 500m deeper than Lancaster. For the evaluation of Lincoln it was assumed
that Lancaster is a direct analogue.
The same evaluation rationale that was applied to Lancaster was used on Lincoln. As with Lancaster
both conventional and unconventional reservoir prospects were identified. From the seismic
evaluation the reservoir was shown to be equally as faulted as mapped in Lancaster and consequently
it was considered reasonable to assume the same reservoir parameters when estimating STOIIP.
Prospective Resources were estimated based on the Lancaster recovery factors, (see Table 1) of the
cover letter. It is considered that the combined conventional and unconventional discovery risk on
Lincoln has a GPoS (Geological Possibility of Success) of 13.2%.
Tempest and Typhoon
The Tempest/Typhoon structure lies approximately 35 km to the west of Lancaster in blocks 204/28,
204/27, 204/22a and 204/23a straddling licences P.1485 and P.1835. Tempest and Typhoon are
respectively Upper Jurassic Rona Sandstone and Fractured Pre-Cambrian Basement
The Rona sandstone of Tempest was penetrated by well 204/28-1 drilled in 1981 by BP where oil
shows were recorded throughout a 49m section. Underlying the Rona Sandstone was oil bearing
fractured Precambrian basement. Both reservoirs were tested and although no oil flowed to surface in
either test heavy, biodegraded oil samples were recovered during reverse circulation. Studies of the
shows from basement flank wells, 204/23-1 and 204/22-1, established the oil was not biodegraded
raising the possibility that the deeper flank basement may have light oil.
Tempest/Typhoon are currently classified as Contingent Resources Development Unclarified/On
Hold.
Contingent Resources ranges were estimated for the Rona Sandstone and conventional basement
with very low recovery factors due to the nature of the oil. The Typhoon Flank is considered to be
Prospective Resources, assigned a GPoS of 10%. The results can be found in Table 1 of the
covering letter.
Strathmore
The Strathmore oil discovery lies within the East Solan Basin, approximately 20 km south of Lancaster
in blocks 204/30a and 205/26a, in licence P.3368. The adjacent Solan discovery lies only in block
205/26a, which is operated by Premier. Strathmore has a Triassic Otter Bank Sandstone reservoir
with a combination structural/stratigraphic trap. Strathmore has been drilled by two wells, the
discovery well, 205/26a-3, drilled in 1991 by Amerada Hess, and the 204/30a-3 appraisal well which
was drilled in 1995. The discovery well was tested at a rate of 240 bopd by a DST in the Lower
Triassic Otter Bank Sandstone.
Strathmore is classified as Contingent Resources Development Unclarified/On Hold, see Table 1 in
the covering letter for range of resources. Before a development plan can be made a number of
ECV2055
RPS Energy
outstanding uncertainties need to be understood. Key among these is the development of the
overlying/adjacent Solan Field, which is currently seen has the best export route, and the permeability
of the Otter Bank sands.
ECV2055
RPS Energy
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1
Overview
Hurricane Energy plc (Hurricane or "HEX") engaged RPS Energy Consultants Limited (RPS) to
prepare an updated Competent Persons Report (CPR) on their offshore assets West of Shetland, UK
for inclusion in a prospectus in association with an Initial Public Offering. RPS prepared previous
th
th
CPRs for Hurricane, dated 18 November 2011 and 18 April 2013. The update in this current report
st
is based on data available up to 1 February 2013 and information regarding licences and the
th
Lancaster Appraisal and Development Drilling Programme available up to 18 October 2013.
RPS has completed an independent evaluation of Contingent and Prospective Resources in these
assets (the Properties). Hurricanes assets include four discoveries in which Contingent Resources
have been identified; Lancaster, Whirlwind, Strathmore and Tempest. Lancaster and Whirlwind have
associated Prospective Resources and Prospective Resources are also identified in two further
prospects; Lincoln and Typhoon.
An economic valuation of the Contingent Resources in Lancaster which will form Phase 1 of the
st
Development has been completed for this report. The effective date for the valuation is 1 October
2013.
A full glossary of terms and abbreviations is given in Appendix D.
2.2
Fractured Reservoirs
Global decline in production from conventional sandstone reservoirs has meant that the discovery and
development of naturally fractured reservoirs has increased in importance to Reserves replacement
during the past 15 years. Despite the increasing significance of naturally fractured reservoirs to world
1
oil production (Waldren & Corrigan (1985); Aguilera (1995); Nelson (2001)) few of these reservoirs
have been exploited optimally because of the unique challenges that differentiate naturally fractured
reservoirs from conventional reservoirs. However, recent advances in geological understanding,
reservoir management and subsurface data acquisition have meant that naturally fractured reservoirs
are now beginning to be developed with increasing efficiency.
Fractured basement reservoirs (basement reservoirs) are a subset of naturally fractured reservoirs
and owe their hydrocarbon storage capacity and productivity to the presence of permeable fractures
that have developed through a variety of geological processes and are so developed that they provide
a connected network of void space. The rocks hosting such fractures are typically igneous and
metamorphic rock such as granite, basalt and gneiss.
Fractured basement reservoirs are typically associated with structures which, over geological time,
have been uplifted and juxtaposed against source rock such that hydrocarbons are able to migrate
into the basement fractures. Such structures and their associated fault systems are of sufficient size
that they can be mapped using 3D seismic, with sufficient accuracy that well locations can be
2
optimized to target sweet spots in the fracture network (Schlumberger 2005) . The use of 3D seismic
coupled with highly deviated or horizontal wells allows for basement reservoirs to be exploited with
relatively low numbers of development wells which when combined with the typically high early
production rates can make basement (and other fractured) plays an attractive target for exploitation
(Nelson 2001).
Basement reservoirs are a global phenomenon (Figure 2.1) and have been long recognized as
potentially significant hydrocarbon resources by numerous authors (Eggleston (1948); Hubbert and
1
Waldren, D. and Corrigan, A.F. (1985). An Engineering and Geological Review of the Problems Encountered in Simulating Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs. In: Proc. SPE Middle East Oil Tech. Conf. & Exhib., Bahrain, 11th-14th Mar., pp.311-316 (SPE 13717).
Aguilera, R. (1995). Naturally Fractured Reservoirs (Second Edition). Pennwell, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Nelson, R.A. (2001). Geologic Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Gulf Publishing Co. Book Division, 2nd Edition, 332.pp.
2
Schlumberger (2005). Modelling the Reservoir While Drilling to Optimize Operations, Case Study: Hoan Vu Joc uses Petrel Software to
model fractured granite basement reservoir I Vietnam. Schlumberger information Sheet, 05-IS-407
ECV2055
RPS Energy
Willis (1955); Landes (1959); Landes et al (1960); Pan (1982) Allen and Sun (2003); Nelson (2001);
3
Petford and McCaffrey (2003)) .
Despite the potential for basement reservoirs, their discovery has historically been more by chance
rather than as a result of the product of a basement-focused exploration programme. However, in
recent years drilling programmes targeted at exploiting basement reservoirs have resulted in major oil
discoveries. Such discoveries have made a significant impact on the hydrocarbon reserve of Yemen
4
(Batchelor (2010); Gutmanis (2009)) and have led to the development of world class oil fields (over a
5
billion barrels recoverable) such as Bach Ho in Vietnam (Tran et al (2006) ; Batchelor (2010); Cuong
et al (2011)).
Figure 2.1 Basement Reservoirs of the World

It should be noted that in the HEX licences resources are also found in more conventional sandstone
and limestone reservoirs but in significantly smaller quantities than in the fractured basement
reservoirs.
Eggleston, W.S. (1948). Summary of Oil Production from Fractured Rock Reservoirs in California. AAPG Bull., Jul., pp.1352-1355.
Hubbert, M.K. Willis, D.G. (1955). Important Fractured Reservoirs in the United States. In: Proc. 4th World Petroleum Congress, Rome,
SectionI/A-1, pp.57-81.
Landes, K.K. (1959). Petroleum Geology, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Landes, K.K., Amoruso,J.J., Charlesworth,L.J., Heany,F. Lesperancep,J. (1960). Pet. Resources in Basement Rocks, AAPG Bull., Vol.44,
No.10, Oct., pp.1682-1691.
P'an, C.H. (1982). Petroleum in Basement Rocks. AAPG Bull., Vol.66, No.10, Oct., pp.1597-1643.
Allan, J., Sun, Q. (2003). Controls on recovery factor in fractured reservoirs: Lessons learned form 100 fractured fields. SPE84590.
Petford, N, & McCaffrey, K.J.W.(eds), (2003). Hydrocarbon in Crystalline Rocks. Geological Society, London, Special Publication, 214, 733. ISBN 1-86239-137-8.
4
Batchelor, T., (2010). Hydrocarbon Production from Fractured Basement Formations, Geoscience Limited.
http://www.geoscience.co.uk/assets/file/Reservoirs%20in%20Fractured%20Basement%20Ver%209_JCG.pdf.
Gutmanis, J. C., (2009). Basement Reservoirs- A review of their Geological and Production Characteristics.I PTC 13156.
5
Tran, D. L., Tran, H. V., Phung, H. D., & others, (2006). Basement fractured reservoir of Bach Ho oil field - a case study. The basement
reservoir. HCM: Science and Technics Publishing House.
ECV2055
RPS Energy
2.3
An Overview of Hurricanes Exploration and Development Strategy
Hurricane believes that the UK continental shelf offers a potential analogue to Vietnam and Yemen as
it too contains a proven petroleum system which is associated with serendipitous basement oil
discoveries. Recognising this as a generally ignored niche opportunity, Hurricane has initiated a work
programme to establish the materiality of the UK basement hydrocarbon resource potential. Hurricane
has focused on the West of Shetlands where previous drilling provided positive evidence of oil in the
basement below more conventional targets at the time of drilling. An active seismic data acquisition
programme has enabled high quality mapping and led to the identification of several relatively low
exploration risk basement prospects which might also have material upside potential outside of
conventional closure within what is modelled to be a pervasive fracture network deep into the
basement.
rd
th
th
To date, having identified and acquired licences in the 23 , 24 and 26 UKCS licencing rounds,
Hurricane has drilled three basement wells each of which have encountered hydrocarbon (to lesser or
greater extent) within the basement. RPS believes that Hurricane has a well defined work programme
which includes further basement exploration in tandem with the appraisal drilling of the Lancaster
basement discovery. In the event of further drilling success and proof of commercial flow-rates,
conceptual development plans have been developed and reviewed by RPS. If these conceptual
development plans are approved and sanctioned as currently assumed, a full field Phase (1) first oil
st
date of 1 January 2019 is viable following a period of commissioning and the commencement of
ramping-up production from the Phase (1) wells in Q4 2018.
In Phase 1 two main cases have been considered: Conventional Only and Base Case. Both cases
assume that a leased floating production vessel is installed on the field, the minimum period of this
initial lease will be for five years, with an agreed extension period. Depending upon what is
determined from the production information, Hurricane will have the option to buy-out the lease which
will reduce the operating costs and potentially increase the life of the field.
In order to assess the uncertainties in the reservoir, two production cases were reviewed: a
Conventional Only Resources case and a Base Case: Conventional plus Unconventional Resources.
The production vessel will only have sufficient facilities installed to handle the Phase 1 fluids. This
vessel will need to be taken off station and brought inshore to have additional (Phase 2) equipment
fitted if it is decided to continue with the Phase 2 development.
Lancaster Drilling Programme will occur in two phases.
programme is the same.
In all cases the initial (Phase 1) well
In the Conventional Only Resources case, no further drilling is justified and the production vessel is
not modified. Production is assumed to continue until the economic limit is reached.
Base Case - it is assumed that Phase 1 proves the Conventional + Unconventional scenario by end
2020 (2 years of production). Hurricane will then consider developing Phase 2.
ECV2055
RPS Energy
3. SUMMARY OF ASSETS
3.1
Offshore Licences
Figure 3.1 Hurricanes Offshore Licences
Hurricane was created in January 2005 and formed a joint venture partnership with Sunshine Oil plc in
June 2005. The joint venture was originally awarded a four block offshore Frontier Licence (P.1368),
nd
rd
effective 22 December 2005, in the 23 UK Licensing Round, with Hurricane as Operator, and a
st
th
further five block Frontier Licence (P.1485), effective 1 April 2007 in the 24 Round (see Section
2.1.1.1). Subsequent to the awards of these licences, Hurricane bought out Sunshine Oil and is now
100% licence interest holder on both licences. In 2011, Hurricane was awarded block 204/23c
th
th
(Traditional Licence P.1835, 100% interest) in the 26 Round, effective 10 January 2011 with an
initial term of 4 years, as an adjunct to their existing P.1485 licence. The P.1835 licence has a
commitment of a single well which is contingent upon successful results being acquired by the
Tempest/Typhoon firm well in P.1485 (see Section 2.1.1.2).
The assets are summarised in Table 3.1 and are all located in the UKCS West of Shetland petroleum
province (Figure 3.1). The term structure and commitments are very similar for both licences and are
detailed below.
ECV2055
RPS Energy
Asset
(Licence/Block)
P.1368
Interest (%)
Status
Term expires
Licence Area
(km2)
Hurricane
100
Exploration
21/12/2017
315.9
See Section
3.1.1.1
Hurricane
100
Exploration
31/12/13
115.1
See Section
3.1.1.2
Hurricane
100
Exploration
09/01/2015
46.3
See Section
3.1.1.3
Operator
205/21a
Comments
205/22a
205/26b
204/30a
P.1485
204/22a
204/27a
204/28a
P.1835
204/23c
Table 3.1 Current Equity Interests of Hurricane (Offshore)
3.1.1
Licence Terms and Commitments
Hurricane holds three Frontier Licences and one Traditional Licence in the West of Shetlands, which
are shown below, along with the licence obligations.
3.1.1.1
P.1368 (Frontier Licence)

Effective date 22
o
nd
December 2005;
nd
Initial Term (2 years) and 2

2011
term (4 years) 22
nd
st
December 2005 to 21 December
Purchase existing 3D seismic survey;
Acquire 1520 km of new 2D seismic data;
Relinquish 75% total area after 2 years (Dec 2007);
Drill one exploration well to a depth of >1100 m or pre-Jurassic.

rd
All commitments have been met and Hurricane took up its option to enter its 3
December 2011
o
3.1.1.2
3 Term 22nd December 2011 to 21st December 2017;

nd
Relinquish 50% of the remaining area of P.1368 as at end of 2 Term
General appraisal and development preparation activity;
Declare FDP or fully relinquish by the end of the term.
P.1485 (Frontier Licence)

st
Effective date 1 April 2007;

o
rd
Term (6 years) in
Initial Term(2 years) and 2
nd
st
st
term (4 Years) 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2013;
Purchase existing 3D seismic survey;
Acquire 567 km of new 2D seismic data;
Re-process 200 km 3D seismic data;
Purchase existing grav/mag survey;
Relinquish 75% total area after 2 years (April 2009);
Drill one exploration well to a depth of >2200 m to evaluate the basement.
N.B. Within the two licence documents the second 6 year period is actually referred to as the 3rd Term
ECV2055
RPS Energy

th
All commitments have been met other than the drilling commitment. On February 18 2013 Hurricane
th
applied to DECC for an extension to the P.1485 licence. On February 20 2013, DECC granted a
nd
th
limited extension of 6 months to the 2 Term of the Licence to 30 September 2013 in order to give
th
Hurricane time to put a rig contract in place to drill the commitment exploration well. On 5 August
st
2013 DECC granted a further 3 month extension to 31 December 2013 to allow for a contract to be
placed.
nd
st
Additionally, at the end of the 2 Term, as at 31 March 2013, DECC requested that Hurricane
relinquish acreage beyond the Typhoon and Tempest prospects. A letter detailing the surrender of
th
this acreage was issued to Hurricane on 11 March 2013. Figure 3.2 below shows the area of the
P.1485 licence that was retained by Hurricane and the areas that were relinquished.
Typhoon crest
Hurricane P1485 retained

Hurricane P1835
P1485 relinquishment
Figure 3.2 Adjustments to P.1485, March 2013 (supplied by Hurricane)

3.1.1.3
P.1835 (Traditional)
th
Effective date 10 January 2011, with an initial term of 4 years

o
ECV2055
Commitment of a single well which is contingent upon successful results being

acquired by the Tempest/Typhoon firm well in P.1485 (see Section 3.1.1.2).
RPS Energy
4. RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION
4.1
General
The evaluation presented in this Competent Persons Report (CPR) has been conducted within our
understanding of UK petroleum legislation, taxation and other regulations that currently apply to these
interests. RPS is not in a position to attest to the property title, financial interest relationships or
encumbrances related to the property. Our estimates of potential resources and risks are based on
the limited data set available to, and provided by, Hurricane. We have accepted, without independent
verification, the accuracy and completeness of these data.
4.2
PRMS Reserves and Resources Classification
Volumes and risk factors are presented in accordance with the 2007 SPE/WPC/AAPG/SPEE
Petroleum Resource Management System (PRMS). Appendix E discusses in more detail the PRMS
classifications appropriate to Hurricane at this time.
The Hurricane portfolio of discovered and undiscovered hydrocarbons all fall within the PRMS
classifications of either Contingent Resources for the discovered hydrocarbons or Prospective
Resources the undiscovered hydrocarbons.
Contingent Resources, as set out in Appendix E, are further classified in to the following categories
reflecting project maturity:
1. Contingent Resources (Development Pending);
2. Contingent Resources (Development Unclarified or on Hold);
3. Contingent Resources (Development not Viable).
Under the above PRMS definitions of Project Maturity Sub-classes the Companys Contingent
Resource volumes are classified as Sub-Commercial. The PRMS defines a project as SubCommercial if the degree of commitment is such that the accumulation is not expected to be
developed and placed on production within a reasonable time frame. While 5 years is recommended
as a benchmark, a longer time frame could be applied where, for example, development of economic
projects are deferred at the option of the producer for, among other things, market-related reasons, or
to meet contractual or strategic objectives. Discovered sub-commercial projects are classified as
Contingent Resources.
PRMS divides projects currently classified as Contingent Resources into two groups, based on
assumptions regarding future conditions and their impact on ultimate economic viability. These two
groups are Marginal Contingent Resources and Sub-Marginal Contingent Resources. Marginal
Contingent Resources are known (discovered) accumulations for which a development project has
been evaluated as economic or reasonably expected to become economic but commitment is withheld
because of one or more contingencies. Sub-Marginal Contingent Resources on the other hand, are
known (discovered) accumulations for which a development project has been evaluated to not meet
economic criteria, even considering reasonably expected improvements in conditions.
Economic evaluation of the Companys contingent resources has not been undertaken as part of the
CPR. However, neither this nor the categorisation of such assets as Sub-Commercial under the
PRMS definitions should be taken as an indication that such resource categories do not have
economic value. By illustration, certain of the Companys Contingent Resources are categorised as
Contingent Resources (Development Pending) and will remain in this category until final appraisal is
complete and a sanctioned development plan is in place for the field. The timescale for formulating a
development plan is at the Companys discretion. Accordingly, the categorisation of such assets as
Sub-Commercial is a function of their stage of development, rather than an indication of the
commerciality or economic value of the resource volumes identified.
4.3
Risk assessment
Both Contingent Resources and Prospective Resources are subject to risk. Prospective Resources
are undiscovered and the probability of success is referred to in PRMS as the Chance of Discovery
(CoD). Contingent Resources are by definition discovered but are subject to a Chance of
Development (also CoD). To avoid confusion with acronyms RPS has used the term Geological
Probability of Success (GPoS) in this document synonymously with Chance of Discovery.
ECV2055
10
RPS Energy
4.3.1 Contingent Resources

It is general good practice for a risk factor to be estimated for Contingent Resources. This is defined
as the chance or probability that the volumes will be commercially extracted, i.e. converted to
Reserves, and is analogous to the Chance of Development defined in the PRMS.
A Contingent Resource includes both proven hydrocarbon accumulations, for which there is currently
no development plan or sales contract, and proven hydrocarbon accumulations that are too small or
where the reservoirs are of insufficient quality to allow commercial development at current prices. As
a result, the estimation of the chance that the volumes will be commercially extracted addresses both
commercial and technical issues.
Unlike Prospective Resources, where there is an accepted industry approach to risk assessment, (i.e.
the Chance of Discovery is represented by the likelihood of source rock, charge, reservoir, trap and
seal interacting to produce a present-day hydrocarbon accumulation), there is no accepted industry
approach to estimating Chance of Development for Contingent Resources.
4.3.2 Prospective Resources
Unlike risk assessment for Contingent Resources, when dealing with undrilled prospects there is a
more accepted industry approach to risk assessment for Prospective Resources. It is standard
practice to assign a Geological Probability of Success (GPoS) which represents the likelihood of
source rock, charge, reservoir, trap and seal combining to result in a present-day hydrocarbon
accumulation. RPS assesses risk by considering both a play risk and a prospect risk. The chance of
success for the play and prospect are multiplied together to give a Geological Probability of Success
(GPoS). We consider three factors when assessing play risk: source, reservoir, seal and we consider
four factors when assessing prospect risk: trap, seal, reservoir and charge. The result is the chance or
probability of discovering hydrocarbon volumes within the range defined. It is not an estimation of
commercial chance of success.
4.4
Classification of Assets
4.4.1 Lancaster
For the major discovery, Lancaster, oil has been flowed to surface in three wells, 205/21-1A 205/21a4, and 4z. Lancaster is progressing to a development decision point but at least one more
appraisal/production well is planned to be drilled first. The resources in the field remain classified as
Contingent Resources, Development Pending until final appraisal is complete and a sanctioned
development plan is in place. Lancaster at present has the highest chance of being developed.
Lancaster would also be considered a Marginal Contingent Resource under PRMS guidelines.
4.4.2 Whirlwind
The Whirlwind discovery was tested in October 2011following a re-entry operation on the 205/21a-5
well. The well test flowed hydrocarbons to surface at low rates but the testing programme was
severely hampered by weather. The fluid analyses are ambiguous (see Section 8.5) and the
hydrocarbons found maybe light, volatile oil or possibly gas condensate. Until further fluid testing can
be done under laboratory conditions there remains an uncertainty on what fluid phase any given
development would be required to handle. As a consequence, RPS considers the Whirlwind
discovery to be classified as Contingent Resources, Development Unclarified.
4.4.3 Typhoon and Tempest
Tempest is a discovery, as is the very upper part of Typhoon containing heavy oil within structural
closure. The Typhoon Flank which is prognosed to contain light oil in fractured basement is a
prospect which requires a well to be drilled and oil sampled from the reservoir and brought to surface
to be classified as a discovery. The Tempest/Typhoon heavy oil discovery is probably highly viscous
(approximately 1000 cP) and will have low recovery factors. Currently there are no plans to further
appraise the accumulation and therefore is classified as Contingent Resources, Development On
Hold.
ECV2055
11
RPS Energy
The Typhoon Flank prospect is prognosed to be a light oil accumulation in the basement flank below
Tempest based on oil shows in the 204/22-1 well (see Section10.3) and is classified as Prospective
Resources pending a conclusive well test or oil sample being brought to surface.
4.4.4 Strathmore
The portfolio also includes Contingent Resources, Development On Hold at the Strathmore discovery
in block 204/30a, where oil has flowed to surface in a DST. RPS has reviewed and, where necessary,
adjusted the input parameters and the resultant range of Resources estimated by Equipoise and
Senergy in detailed studies of Strathmore. The current development scenario is dependent upon a
tie-back to Lancaster and as such is on hold until the Lancaster development is sanctioned and underway.
As demonstrated above, Contingent Resources is a category of Resources which can contain
hydrocarbon volumes at various stages of maturity towards development and consequently
monetisation. As a result, RPS believes that it is not only appropriate but essential that Contingent
Resources should be subject to a chance of development. This has not been quantified numerically
but the contingencies that need to be clarified have been identified.
4.5
Arithmetic vs statistical aggregation
The volumetric uncertainty in Reserves (1P, 2P and 3P) and Contingent Resources (1C, 2C and 3C) is
commonly expressed as confidence levels in a continuous probability distribution. The 1P or 1C
representing a 90% confidence, 2P and 2C a 50% confidence and 3P and 3C a 10% confidence. It is
statistically incorrect to arithmetically aggregate 1P, 2P and 3P Reserves or 1C, 2C and 3C
Contingent Resources and then assign a 90%, 50% or 10% confidence to the aggregated totals.
Probabilistically derived Reserves or Resources should be aggregated using a statistically valid
technique known as Monte Carlo simulation.
PRMS however recommends that for reporting purposes, assessment results should not incorporate
statistical aggregation beyond the field, property or project level. It also recognises that the arithmetic
sum of 1P Reserves or 1C Resources will be pessimistic and not representative of the true
aggregated P90 Reserves or Resources. Similarly the arithmetic sum of 3P Reserves or 3C
Resources will be optimistic and not representative of the true aggregated P10 Reserves or Resources.
Appendix C contains an explanation of statistical aggregation methodologies.
ECV2055
12
RPS Energy
5. DATABASE
5.1
Seismic Data
A Kingdom seismic project was provided for each of the assets. Each project contained either
subsets of the PGS Megamerge 3D survey applicable to the assets, or a version of the entire
Megamerge.
It is a compilation of several vintages of seismic surveys, and there are some issues of phase variation
between surveys within the Megamerge. However, over individual assets this variation is not a
problem for the purpose of quality controlling interpretations. The polarity and phase of the data is
assumed to be zero-phase, with a positive impedance contrast being represented with a positive loop
on the seismic data. A full suite of interpreted horizons were included in the Kingdom projects,
including the reservoir horizons and the key overburden horizons for depth conversion.
In addition, consultants Equipoises depth maps of all the reservoir horizons were provided.
5.2
Well Data
Well data including wireline logs (las files), core analysis, geological reports, etc, were received as
tabulated below, Table 5.1. Logs were also included in the Kingdom projects.
Core
Analysis
Geochemistry
Wireline
Logs
well
reports
images
only
composite
log
geological
reports
well
test
Lancaster
205/21-1
205/21-1a
205/21-2
205/21a-4
205/21a-4z
Lincoln
204/30-1
205/26-1
Whirlwind
205/21a-5
Typhoon/Tempest
204/22-1
204/23-1
204/27a-1
204/28-1
204/28-2
Strathmore
204/30a-2
204/30a-3
204/26a-3
204/26a-4
204/26a-5
204/26a-5z
204/26a-6
images
only
Table 5.1 Summary of well data
ECV2055
13
RPS Energy
5.3
Other Data
RPS was also supplied with a Petrel model for Lancaster provided by Golder Associates which held
the reservoir model for Lancaster.
In addition, several reports and PowerPoint presentations by consultants working on these assets
were provided by Hurricane. These included
Equipoise depth conversion for Lancaster, Whirlwind and Typhoon/Tempest
Golder Associates Analysis and Scoping Modelling of the Fractured Basement Potential of
the Typhoon and Lancaster Prospects, West of Shetland
Senergy several PowerPoint reports covering petrophysics, reservoir engineering, DST

analysis, simulation, geophysics and heavy oil evaluation.
Eriksfiord analysis of the FMI logs run in 205/21a-4 and 4z.
Schlumberger Several reports on fracture analysis and petrophysics for Lancaster wells
205/21a-4 and 205/21a-4z
Since the 2011 CPR, Hurricane has concentrated on conceptual development planning of the
Lancaster field. A number of reports created by Hurricane, in conjunction with various 3rd parties
(Axis Well Technology, EPC Offshore for example) examining various development options and
conceptual costs of development.
These reports were supplied to RPS as part of the review, including (but not limited to):
ECV2055
Lancaster Development Statement of Requirements

Lancaster Reservoir Depletion Plan
Drilling Plans
Rig Market Enquiries
Well Cost architecture
Development Option Definitions
Concept Technical Evaluations
Export Route Option Evaluations
Artificial Lift Option Reviews
Well Completion Strategies
14
RPS Energy
6. TECHNICAL EVALUATION
6.1
Regional Setting
Hurricanes offshore licences are located on or close to the Rona Ridge, which is a major NE-SW
trending basement feature within the West of Shetland petroleum province, Figure 6.1. The Foinaven
and Schiehallion producing fields, located 30km to the NW of Lancaster and Whirlwind, produce from
Upper Palaeocene sandstones, and demonstrate a nearby prolific Upper Jurassic oil source rock in
the Faeroe-Shetland Basin.
The Clair field lies on the Rona Ridge to the NE in quadrant 206 and there is evidence from this field
(in wells 206/7-1 and 206/7a-2) that fractured basement could potentially produce at commercial rates,
although it is understood that no production from Clair currently comes from basement.
Figure 6.1 Geological setting of Hurricanes West of Shetland interests
6.2
Fractured Basement Analogues

7
The fracture classification for the Lancaster Prospect is Type I (Nelson 2001) which is defined as
fractured reservoirs with little matrix porosity and permeability, and fractures supply the storage
capacity and fluid-flow pathways. Hurricane has carried out a substantial amount of work on fault and
fracture analysis at Lancaster and other prospects, and has provided data and examples from other
wells and global analogues of production from fractured basement reservoirs. Hurricane has
developed a niche for plays with fractured basement, which are under-explored in the UK. Their
studies include evaluations of granite and gneiss basement in wells, outcrops in Scotland and
Scandinavia, and a substantial number of analogues where fractured basement has proved highly
7
Nelson, R.A. (2001). Geologic Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Gulf Publishing Co. Book Division, 2nd Edition.
ECV2055
15
RPS Energy
productive. Some of the globally most significant fractured basement reservoirs include Aguila
Nafoora (Libya), Bach Ho (Vietnam), Ruby (SE Vietnam), Rang Dong (Vietnam), La Paz (South
America), Wangzhuang (China), West Puerto Chiquito (USA), and Zeit Bay (Egypt) (also see Figure
2.1). In the West of Shetland, there are many drilled basement sections with oil shows and there are
three known examples (one in the south west of the Foinaven field and two in Clair field) where a
significant quantity of hydrocarbons has been produced from fractured basement.
RPS has reviewed and considered all available information and data (either in-house or provided by
Hurricane) from the global analogues of fractured basement reservoir to find the three nearest
analogues to Lancaster field in accordance with the SPE (and SEC) criteria for the selection of
8
analogues for Reserves and Resources estimation . RPS finds that Wangzhuang (China), West
Puerto Chiquito (USA) and Zeit Bay (Egypt) are the closest analogues to the Lancaster discovery and
Lincoln prospect since they are all approximately at the same depth and are expected to exhibit similar
geological and fluid properties. For Whirlwind, which is deeper in the section, Augila-Nafoora (Libya),
Bach Ho (Vietnam) and Ruby (SE Vietnam) are selected as the closest analogues since they are
buried deeper than the three analogues selected for Lancaster and are expected to exhibit similar
geological and fluid properties to Whirlwind.
The information obtained from the selected analogues, including analysis of their production data,
enabled RPS to more confidently select and estimate likely oil decline rates and model likely recovery
factors for the discoveries and prospects studied, despite their relatively immature stage of
appraisal/exploration.
E. Hodgin, D.R. Harrell , The Selection Application and Misapplication of Reservoir Analogs for the Estimation of Petroleum
Reserves, SPE-102505-MS-P
ECV2055
16
RPS Energy
7. LANCASTER DISCOVERY
The Lancaster discovery is a multi-component oil accumulation consisting of a conventional four-way
dip closure mapped at top Precambrian Basement, top Valhall Formation where there is a small
closure (stratigraphically and 3-way dip) around 205/21-1A and in the Commodore Sandstone in a
small pinch-out trap over the north-west of the main Basement structure, and an unconventional outof-closure section that has proven oil to be present and a deeper unconventional prospective section
which is model driven. The Lancaster discovery has been penetrated by three wells 205/21-1a drilled
by Shell in 1974, 205/21a-4 drilled by Hurricane in 2009 and a sidetracked well 205/21a-4z also drilled
by Hurricane in 2010.
7.1
Summary
Lancaster is located in blocks 205/21a, 205/22a and 205/26b within licence P.1368 which lies on a
basement high with four-way dip closure in the Outer Rona Terrace, on the Rona Ridge just to the SE
of the Schiehallion/Foinaven fields (Figure 7.1 and Figure 7.2).
Figure 7.1 Seismic section across Lancaster discovery

Well 205/21-1a was drilled by Shell in 1974 and penetrated a 349 ft (106.4 m) section of Upper
Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous on top of Lewisian basement, beneath a 4000 ft (1220 m) Upper
Cretaceous and Tertiary section. Top basement was encountered at -4357ft TVDSS (-1328 m
TVDSS). Oil shows were observed in cores taken from fractured Precambrian basement. The well
was tested by DST 1 across a 245 ft (75 m) interval of basement, and the overlying tight Rona sand
and Valhall Fm limestone. The test flowed at a maximum rate of 191 bbl water a day with a 2% trace
o
of 31-36 API oil. Hurricane considered the test to have been impaired because of reservoir damage
and were convinced that potential remained within fractured basement reservoir. As a consequence,
in September 2009, Hurricane drilled an appraisal well, 205/21a-4, near the crest of the structure, in
an area of dense fracturing, to determine the potential of the major seismic faults and fracture
networks in the basement. The well encountered porous media in the basement, however, the DST
was compromised by operational issues and severe formation damage caused by the chosen drilling
fluid (Drilplex). In June 2010, the Lancaster well was re-entered and sidetracked using a balanced
sea water/brine drilling fluid. The reservoir was partially penetrated and a DST (1) performed in this
ECV2055
17
RPS Energy
upper section. The well flowed light oil at rates of 2200 bopd with no water production. Production
logging was run to characterise the flow profile. The well was then deepened and a second DST (2)
performed on the combined open-hole interval. Production rates were 2500 bopd and 500 bwpd.
Again, production logging was run to characterise the flow profile. An excellent data set was produced
from this side track well. These data were reviewed and duly interpreted by RPS which is summarised
in Sections 7.5.3 and 7.5.4.
Figure 7.2 Geo-seismic cross-section showing location and basic hydrocarbon system for
Lancaster
The geological model for Lancaster is that the basement is substantially faulted and fractured, which
creates fracture porosity for hydrocarbons and a permeability network within structural closure.
Significant upside potential could exist below structural closure as is seen in a number of fractured
reservoir fields, including in well 204/22-1 drilled in the NW flank of Typhoon.
In order to quantify the volumetric potential for this fractured reservoir, Hurricane contracted Ikon
Science to generate a fault plane set using their in-house software and algorithms, and Golder &
Associates to model these fault planes according to analogue data. RPS has reviewed these studies
and the mapping and depth conversion, reservoir quality and test results from well 205/21-4z. In
addition, RPS has carried out an independent fracture analysis using PETRELs Ant Tracking
process.
7.2
Geophysical Interpretation and Mapping
RPS has undertaken a considerable amount of independent work in addition to reviewing Hurricanes
interpretation and mapping. Definition and quantification of the main faults and fractures is essential in
determining potential in-place volumes.
7.2.1
Data Set
A 3D seismic dataset from the PGS Megamerge covers the discovery. The survey is extensive,
covering all of Hurricanes West of Shetland (WoS) assets. It is a compilation of several vintages of
seismic surveys, and we have found that there are issues of phase variation between surveys within
ECV2055
18
RPS Energy
the Megamerge. However, over individual assets this variation is not a problem for the purpose of
quality controlling interpretations.
The quality of the seismic data also varies, but on the whole is considered adequate. There are
severe issues with imaging the Basement reflector away from the Basement highs where on-lapping
hard units attenuate seismic energy (see Figure 7.3 and Figure 7.4). However, with the exception of
Typhoon, these are down-dip of the main areas of interest and do not hinder the interpretation for
volumetrics.
Figure 7.3 Top Basement amplitude extraction showing brights on the highs and dims on
flanks
7.2.2
Well Data
The following well-ties were generated by RPS using Hampson-Russell software, some from a
9
previous RPS report : 205/21a-4, 205/21a-4z, 205/21-1A, 205/21a-5, 205/26a-5, 205/26a-5Z,
205/26a-4, 205/26a-3, 204/30a-3, 204/22-1, 204/25-1, 204/27a-1, 204/28-1, 204/28-2, 205/21-2.
7.2.3
Interpretation and Mapping
RPS made synthetics and independent well ties for most of the supplied wells to help verify the
Hurricane interpretation. Over most of the Lancaster structure the basement has been interpreted by
Hurricane as the upper zero crossing of a hard loop (the Basement pick). Apart from a thin, probably
patchily developed unit of Commodore Sandstone, the overburden is largely the soft, argillaceous
sediments of Cretaceous marls making the hard Basement loop easy to pick. However, both at and
down-dip of the 205/21-1A well, on-lapping units of Lower Cretaceous limestones complicate the
basement interpretation making it more diffuse and difficult to pick with confidence (see Figure 7.4).
EVALUATION OF HURRICANE EXPLORATION PLC ASSETS, RPS, May 2008
ECV2055
19
RPS Energy
Figure 7.4 Random seismic line through wells 205/21a-4/4z and 205/21-1A
A review of the interpretation across the Lancaster discovery shows the structural closure at basement
is robust. The RPS well ties at 205/21-1A, 205/21a-4 and 4z and ties to other Basement penetrating
wells are reasonable and verify the Basement interpretation.
Hurricane carried out detailed fault mapping at top Basement. In addition to manual fault picking,
Hurricane used automatic fault detection software (Ikons FaultX) and curvature studies, and
contracted Golder & Associates to construct a discrete fracture network model. The result of Ikons
work is displayed in Figure 7.5. RPS carried out an independent fracture/fault analysis using the Anttracking module of PETREL (a technique based on neural network methodology). Figure 7.6
shows the results of analysis using Passive Ants and Aggressive Ants. As can be seen, there is a
close corroboration with Ikons fault pattern with the Passive Ant method. However, there appear to
be many fracture lineations on the Ant-tracking model that have not been identified by Ikon. The
Aggressive Ant method shows stronger continuity along fracture lineations and a denser fault
network. It may be however that the use of Aggressive Ants has allowed too much forced
interpretation of noise within the seismic data, but the Ant-tracking method in general supports the
Ikon fault pattern. For the purposes of RPSs construction of a static model, the Passive Ant fracture
pattern was adopted, as it is corroborated by the Ikon method.
It should be noted however, that both the Ikon and RPS fault patterns are likely to under-represent the
actual fault and fracture density of the basement. Many minor fractures and faults will be undetectable
at the seismic resolution available. This is discussed further in Section 7.3.
ECV2055
20
RPS Energy
Figure 7.5 Map showing Ikon fault pattern in the vicinity of 205/21a-4
Arrows point examples of additional

faults generated by aggressive ants
Figure 7.6 Comparison of results of Passive (left) and Aggressive (right) Ant Tracking
(shown in shades of grey and blue), and Ikon Coherency Analysis, shown in colour
7.2.4
Depth Conversion
Hurricane asked Equipoise to undertake depth conversions of the Basement surface over the
Whirlwind and Lancaster prospects in December 2007, which they then updated in May 2011. The
updated model used a 4-layer approach as follows:
ECV2055
21
RPS Energy

-1
Sea level to sea bed - constant interval velocity of 1480 ms .
Sea bed to Base Tertiary - V0+kZ function using a constant k of 0.5732 and a constant V0 of
-1
1669.9 ms .
Base Tertiary to Valhall/Basement - V0+kZ function using a constant k of 0.3867 and a

-1
constant V0 of 1945.0 ms .
Valhall to Basement - constant interval velocity of 3834 ms .
-1
According to Equipoise, this approach led to relatively small residuals in most wells (see Table 7.1).
Well 205/21a-5, had a relatively large residual which they attribute to an unexpected variation in
velocity at the base of the Tertiary between the Lancaster and Whirlwind prospects.
Well
Seabed
204/25-1
205/16-1
205/21-1a
205/21-2
205/21a-4
205/21a-4z
205/21a-5
205/22-1a
205/23-2
205/26-1
8.3
-15.3
0.2
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
5.2
6.1
Base
Tertiary
-16.1
-38.2
8.1
89.5
10.9
2.8
16.3
-7.0
-6.2
62.1
Valhall/
Commodore/
Basement
Basement
12.7
22.3
-5.1
0.0
0.0
-12.8
3.3
3.3
-37.7
6.6
41.4
4.4
-8.7
-26.1
3.3
0.0
-35.8
Table 7.1 Residual depth errors at wells after depth conversion (source: Equipoise Whirlwind
post-drill Depth Conversion report, May 2011)
To cross-check the methodology and parameters used in the Equipoise depth conversion, RPS
conducted a regional depth conversion exercise using SPRINT, a sophisticated 'tool-box' we
developed to allow the user to execute thousands of depth conversion realisations and rank them
using cross validation error.
Analysis of the well velocity data identified only two overburden horizons with significant velocity
breaks: the sea bed and a horizon marking the top of the high velocity deep sediments defined by
either the Hidra/Svarte or the Valhall depending on location. These horizons were both used in the
cross validation analysis, however, the results suggested that modelling the faster layer did not
improve the result. The models with the lowest cross validation error used a 2 layer approach gridding
apparent well velocities between the sea bed and the basement with the isochore grid used as a trend
away from the wells.
A difference map between RPSs and Hurricanes Basement depth maps show only minor differences.
However, the RPS map is slightly shallower to the northwest of the wells and results in a calculated
GRV about 6% greater than Hurricanes using a contact depth of 1470m. The differences increase in
the basement lows away from the well control, with the RPS check-model producing a shallower
basement depth in these regions. As this is below the contact, however, this does not impact on GRV
volume. It is noted that a similar result was found during the depth conversion quality control
conducted in the CPR prepared by RPS in 2008.
In conclusion, RPS finds that the choice of depth conversion methodology (and the choice of
parameters therein) has only a minor impact on GRV, and consequently STOIIP. Therefore, RPS
finds the Equipoise methodology to be sound and the final depth maps have been adopted for
volumetric purposes.
7.3
Lancaster Geological Model
The reservoir is fractured igneous/tonalite basement. From analogues, the vast majority of oil will be
in the fractures, so modelling these fractures is key in order to estimate net rock volume for volumetric
purposes.
Hurricane contracted Golder Associates to build a static reservoir model of the Lancaster Prospect in
PETREL. This was based on the fault interpretation from Ikons FaultX and structural model from
the 3D seismic interpretation. RPS has reviewed and validated the fault pattern using an independent
ECV2055
22
RPS Energy
approach (Section 7.2.3). Golder made reasonable assumptions on extension and increased
10
connectivity of the faults , based on correlation with curvature analysis and faults interpreted on a
coherency cube, to build a Discrete Fracture Network model comprising seismically resolvable faults
and their sub-seismic fault interpolations. The model was developed using 10m cells and was
subdivided into two tecto-facies:
1.
Fault zones (FZ). These were hand-digitised using the fault pattern generated by
the coherency/curvature work of Ikon. These represent the seismically interpretable faults plus
those imaged as lineaments on the coherency volume. RPS note that many of the smaller
fractures observed on the coherency volume have not been modelled as fault zones, but fall in
to the so-called pseudo-matrix.
A workflow/macro using 10m cells modelled a fault-zone of randomly varying width with a range
30-40-70m and a vertical extent to the base of the model. The fault-zone cells were then
randomly populated with a range of porosities from 3%-7%-15% and water saturations from 0%5%-10%. All properties, including fault zone width, followed a triangular distribution and were
derived from analogues and also cores and sidewall samples from the Lancaster wells.
2.
Pseudo-matrix (PM). The cells between fault zones were populated with a range of
low porosities derived from analogues and core samples from the Lancaster wells. It is
assumed that the pseudo-matrix will have sub-seismic scale fractures and fracture halos which
boost the average porosity of the otherwise tight rock. Some of these fractures have been
imaged on the coherency volumes but not modelled as fault zones, but from the material
supplied by Golder, it is not clear how the porosity and Sw values have been averaged within
this unit.
According to a spreadsheet provided by Golder in their report pseudo-matrix comprises approximately
67% of the gross rock volume (GRV) whilst the fault zones make up about 33% GRV.
Whilst RPS consider the overall methodology used by Golder Associates to be a good attempt at
addressing the problem of volumetrics in these fractured-basement rocks, by Golders own admission
the model is conceptual. There are many variables that are difficult to quantify, such as porosity and
Sw ranges and the proportion of faults and fractures that are open apertures or closed by
mineralisation and other infill material. Golder and Hurricane assume net to gross ratio (NTG) in the
pseudo-matrix is 100% because fractures could exist anywhere within the GRV and a proportion of
these will contribute to flow, as illustrated by the production log in well 205/21a-4z. Reservoir
properties in the pseudo-matrix are much poorer than in the seismically-defined fault zones. The
average porosity of 0.2% in basement core plugs from well 205/21-1a demonstrates non-net rock in
the matrix volume but these plugs are an example of the poorest quality, un-fractured rock that is not
included in the hydrocarbon volumetric estimations. In the volumetric calculations a range of pseudoporosity value was applied to the GRV of the pseudo-matrix. These values are essentially the fracture
pore volume, as a proportion, of the pseudo-matrix GRV, and are not average matrix porosities.
These porosities are exceedingly difficult to predict as neither core plugs nor logs adequately capture
accurate porosities that are controlled by fracturing. A considerable amount of literature shows that
the degree of faulting, fracturing and associated porosity and permeability varies significantly between
producing fields and different reservoirs, including granitic and gneiss reservoirs, and under different
stress regimes.
As a cross-check on the Golder Associates model, it was decided to construct an independent model
using the Ant-tracking extraction at Top Basement (Figure 7.7).
10
Golders Associates analysis and Scoping Modelling of Fractured Basement of Typhoon and Lancaster Prospects West of
Shetland; 2008
ECV2055
23
RPS Energy
Cross-section through
Lancaster wells showing ant
tracked faults modelled as
vertical faults
Figure 7.7 3D view and cross section showing the RPS fault and fracture lineations extracted
using Ant-tracking
As noted above, not all the seismically imaged faults were included in the fault zone facies. RPSs
Ant-tracking extractions appeared to image more fracture lineations than did Ikons FaultX algorithm.
The fault zone widths were derived from the seismic itself: it is perhaps not unreasonable to assume
the longer more strongly defined faults will have wider associated fracture zones. Based on this
seismic analysis, RPS estimates that the fault zones take up 36% of the GRV with 64% consisting of
pseudo-matrix. No uncertainty range was applied since the ratio was based on what was determined
directly from the Ant-tracking rather than from analogues. The Petrel model was used to derive
GRV values for sensitivity work in REP.
7.3.1
Reservoir Properties
Reservoir properties in fractured reservoirs are notoriously difficult to model, particularly for a Type-1
fractured reservoir where very little or no conventional pore-space exists within the rock matrix. The
following sections provide a discussion of the various ranges of porosity that have been proposed by
various authors.
7.3.2
Basement Reservoir
For the Basement reservoir, as discussed above it has been generally accepted that in highly
fractured rock that the net to gross ratio can be considered as 100%. This is supported by the
Production Logging Tool (PLT) in the tested well, 205/21a-4z, where essentially the whole penetrated
basement section contributed to flow.
As a consequence, the key parameter and main focus for evaluating the reservoir properties is
porosity. Hurricane considered a number of evaluation methods to determine the possible ranges of
11
porosity that might be expected in this Type-1 fractured reservoir. Their analysis included core data,
FMI data analogues and conventional log analysis. The analysis recognises two reservoir facies, fault
zones and pseudo-matrix. The fault zones are defined as volumes associated with mappable faults.
The pseudo-matrix is the rock between fault zones which contains sub-seismic scale faulting and
background fracturing. Based on the various data sources Hurricane estimates a porosity range as
detailed in Table 7.2 below.
11
Weber et al, Fracture and Vuggy Porosity, SPE 10332, 1981
ECV2055
24
RPS Energy
Porosity determination
method
Fault Zones
Core analysis from AOI
5-22%
1-5%
Known issues:
Under represents highest porosity from core recovery
Measurements high from relaxation
3-7-15%
1-6-11%
Method assumes that all electrical apertures scale by

the same proportion from apparent to actual
Aperture reconstruction
from image logs
Pseudo Matrix
Petro-physics - NMR
Average Porosity = ~3% -side track

90% Porosity = 6% - side track
Zonal Averages = 3.6, 3.1, 1.3, 3.8%
Petro-physics - Sonic
Average Porosity = ~3.3% -pilot

90%ile Porosity = 5.4% - pilot
Best Estimate
3-7-15%
1-5%
Comments
NMR thought to be better than sonic and does detect

mega fractures. However SLB consider these values a
minimum
Sonic known to poorly measure fracture porosity. At

best under prediction
Fault zone porosity taken from core and aperture
analysis, pseudo matrix taken form core and bench
marked to average NMR porosities
Higher PM porosities from core and aperture analysis
reasonable but thought to be fault related
Table 7.2 Hurricane estimates of fault zone and pseudo-matrix porosity

RPS reviewed the porosity data sources with particular focus on the latest log analysis of well
12
205/21a-4z by Ian Stott of Logicom. His approach was to calculate porosity using a number of
different methods including Bateman Konen, UBI transit times, and NMR. RPS considers that the
results from the different approaches to porosity were reasonable. This results in average porosities
for the Basement interval to be in the range 3.2 to 4.2%, with an average of the methods giving about
3.8%. However, RPS also considers that this value may represent a conservative case. If estimates
are made to account for the mud filling of fractures with over 1cm aperture, an average porosity may
be increased to about 4.7%.
Other data sources have been presented by Hurricane such as a review of local core data. Here a
large range of porosities are measured with a range of 5% to 22% in FZ and 1% to 5% in the PM. FMI
13
data was analysed both by Golders and Eriksfiord .
Golders work recognised that the electrical measurements clearly fail to measure full apertures
14
observed with apertures > 10mm . Manual measurement showed apertures to be significantly
larger. An aperture reconstucture approach was adopted to correct for the under-estimation which
resulted in fracture porosity ranges in the FZ of 3% to 15% and 1% to 11% in the PM.
Eriksfiords picked fractures directly from the 205/21a-4z well FMI image, which, although described as
somewhat degraded, identified a series of fracture classes. They considered the reservoir to be
good with porosities in the 1% to 1.5% range, based on a limited number of fracture measurements,
which could be increased to 2% if allowance is made for pervasive micro-fracturing is made.
Integrating the above studies RPS took the view that a large range of reservoir porosities exists for
both the FZ and PM. We consider the log analysis of well 205/21a-4z represents a reasonable
assessment of the average porosity in the well, estimated at 3.8%, and used this as a calibration when
determining ranges of porosities for FZ and PM. Based on Hurricanes analysis, Table 7.2 above, we
considered the FZ range to be reasonable for the low and mid values but used a more conservative
high value to maintain consistency with the log analysis in 205/21a-4z. For the PM we reduced the
porosity range to reflect that our fracture identification from seismic had a higher fracture proportion,
capturing more fractures. This being the case our PM range was determined to ensure the total
porosity in the best case did not exceed that calculated from logs in 205/21a-4z. For the low cases
12
Logicom Petrophysical Study, 205/20a-4z, 2011
13
Quality of fractured basement reservoir in Lancaster prospect, May 2011
14
HEX modelling notes 12th May2011
ECV2055
25
RPS Energy
porosity in the FZ and PM the aim was to obtain an average porosity no greater than 2% to reflect that
the 205/21a-4z is not representative of the whole reservoir and to reflect the more conservative view
from the Eriksfiord work, described above.
The estimation of water saturation (Sw) in fractured reservoirs is very difficult. In the FZ where
permeability is very high at multiple darcies, Sw would be expected to be very low, in the order of 0 to
5%. In the PM where micro-fracturing is present, average Sw will remain low but not as low as in the
FZ. Estimating values is very difficult but a large range of between 5% and 20% Sw is reasonable in a
fractured environment.
7.3.2.1
Commodore Reservoir
Both wells 205/21a-4 and 4z encountered an oil bearing sandstone section overlying the main
Basement reservoir, the Commodore Formation. The thickness of the interval was measured at
13.6 m and 5.5 m TVT in wells 205/21a-4 and 4z respectively. Three sand facies are identified,
argillaceous sandstone, clean sandstone and a lower calcite cemented sandstone. Reservoir quality
rock is restricted to the middle clean section. From interpretation of the seismic it is clear that the
Commodore sand is located on the west side of the Lancaster structure (see Section 6.2.3).
The evaluation of the reservoir properties was somewhat hampered by the casing shoe placed in the
middle of the interval in the 205/21a-4 well. Logicom evaluated the section. RPS has reviewed this
interpretation and has found, with data available, the evaluation was reasonable with lower part of the
section being un-interpretable. The sums and averages derived from this evaluation form the basis for
the RPS input to the volumetric calculation for the Commodore Formation.
7.4
Lancaster Volumetrics
A volumetric range for Lancaster Basement has been provided by Golder and also is independently
calculated by RPS. The field is subdivided into Main and East. The East is located to the east of a
small structural saddle at top Basement. Seismically, the East is structurally the same as the Main
area and the same contact rationale applies to both. The East is limited to the east by the 205/22a
licence boundary. The Gross Rock Volumes (GRV) were derived from area depth plots and the
contacts, the rationale for which is explained below.
7.4.1
Contacts
Hurricane subdivides the Basement reservoir into Conventional and Unconventional intervals, ie
intervals where hydrocarbons are reservoired in Conventional traps or Unconventional traps.
Conventional intervals are those intervals where hydrocarbons are above a mapped closure. The
Unconventional intervals are those in which hydrocarbons have been demonstrated to be present or
considered to be present, the latter being undiscovered, below structural closure (Figure 7.8 and
Figure 7.9).
Lancaster main area
Commo dore s and
4 4z
Lancaster upside area (East)
205/21-1a
Conventional
Unconventional
Discovered
205/21a-4 TD 1781m TVDSS
Unconventional
Undiscovered
2000m TVDSS: 1 km below
basement crest
Block 205/22a Boundary
Conventional
Basement spill 1380m TVDSS
Modified after Hurricane
Figure 7.8 Breakdown of STOIIP Classification

ECV2055
26
RPS Energy
1781m TVDSS
Unconventional Closure
2000 m TVDSS
Prospective Closure
Lancaster
Main area
Lancaster (East)
upside area
1380m TVDSS
Conventional Closure
Figure 7.9 Lancaster Basement Depth map showing Closure Areas

For the Conventional interval evaluation no definitive contacts have been determined in the field.
Golder carried out their volumetrics varying the ODT based on the following premises (in m TVDSS):
1333 m
Lowest produced oil from 4z well test as ascertained from PLT log.
1340 m
Spill point of Valhall Formation which is presumed to act as a waste zone.
1380 m
Spill point of Basement depth structure map.
RPS has reviewed the range and is in broad agreement with this range of possible contact scenarios.
The evidence for an Unconventional interval is based on the 205/21a-4 well. Hurricane has carried
out a comprehensive review of hydrocarbon detection in the well. This included standard formation
evaluation during drilling and post-well geochemistry. Most indicators record the presence of oil over
about two thirds of the Unconventional section with increases in background gas over the fracture
zones encountered in the wells. A MDT oil sample below the structural spill at 1380 m TVDSS was
recorded and deeper-in-section oil was swabbed at surface. At the TD of the well a MDT (Modular
Dynamic Tester) sample recovered water. Post well analysis of the cutting detected oil to TD. RPS
accepts Hurricanes potential contact range based on the well results (in m TVDSS):
1475 m
Oil shows from MDT-IFA module during pumping
1597 m
Oil circulated to surface following documented well control operations
1781 m
TD of the well oil detected in cuttings
Due to the apparent juxtaposition of the main hydrocarbon source-rocks and the fractured Basement
reservoir in Lancaster where the deep northern flank adjoins source-rock areas, Hurricane postulates
that a hydrocarbon column, probably with much higher water saturations, may be present below the
depth of the 205/21a-4 well. These more speculative Undiscovered Unconventional volumes are
categorised as Prospective Resources.
Hurricanes theory is that the controls on the hydrocarbon column may be a basement megastructure incorporating a large closure on the Rona Ridge. The prognosed total oil column in the
Typhoon prospect is about 1km. If this is applied to Lancaster, a hydrocarbon base of 2000m TVDSS
can be defined. RPS takes the view that the evidence from the 205/21a-4 would suggest the
hydrocarbon column is somewhere between the 1340m TVDSS and the TD. However, it is still a
possibility that deeper oil may exist based on the cuttings analysis. A high risk factor (GPoS of 10%)
was applied to the undiscovered interval with the main risk being presence and effectiveness of the
trap based on the negative indications of deeper oil, below TD, in 205/21a-4.
ECV2055
27
RPS Energy
7.4.2
STOIIP Inputs and Results
RPS (and Hurricane) calculate STOIIP in two reservoirs for the Lancaster discovery. The primary
target reservoir is the fractured basement, with secondary volumes calculated within the overlying
Commodore sandstone.
7.4.2.1
Basement Formation
Table 7.3 below details the input parameters used to determine the range of Conventional STOIIP.
Contact Range (m)
Low
Best
High
1333
1340
1380
Proportion PM %
64
Proportion FZ %
36
Porosity PM (%)
Porosity FZ (%)
10
Sw PM (%)
10
20
Sw FZ (%)
10
Bo (rb/stb)
1.2
1.2
1.2
Table 7.3 Lancaster Conventional Basement Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case
Volumes were calculated for each facies and were consolidated probabilistically. The results are
shown in Table 7.4.
Main
East
15
Total
Low
Best
High
Mean
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
115
204
314
211
25
44
69
46
140
248
383
257
Table 7.4 RPS Estimated Conventional Basement STOIIP in Lancaster (100% Basis)
The input parameters (Table 7.5) and results for the discovered and undiscovered Unconventional
STOIIP are detailed in Table 7.6 and Table 7.7 below.
Low
Best
High
Contact Range Discovered (m)
1475
1597
1781
Contact Range Undiscovered (m)
1781
2000
Proportion PM %
64
Proportion FZ %
36
Porosity PM (%)
0.5
Porosity FZ (%)
Sw PM (%)
30
50
70
Sw FZ (%)
10
Bo (rb/stb)
1.2
Table 7.5 Lancaster Unconventional Basement Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case
15
The totals are the arithmetic sums of the Low, Mid and High Estimates. Since there is a 90 per cent probability that the p90
volumes for each individual pool will be recovered, and that independence exists between each pool, there is a statistically
much higher probability that the arithmetic summation of the p90 volumes will be recovered. Similarly, the p10 volumes can be
regarded as a maximum, i.e. an amount consistent with a lower level of confidence that is normally associated with p10
volumes. Only the sum of the mean values will be statistically correct.
ECV2055
28
RPS Energy
Low
Best
High
Mean
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
248
600
1242
687
80
198
423
229
328
798
1665
916
Main
East
16
Total
Table 7.6 RPS Estimated Discovered Unconventional Basement STOIIP in Lancaster (100%
Basis)
Main
East
Total
16
Low
Best
High
Mean
GPoS
Risked Mean
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
194
620
1398
729
n/a
77
247
558
290
n/a
271
867
1956
1019
10%
102
Table 7.7 RPS Estimated Undiscovered Unconventional Basement STOIIP in Lancaster (100%
Basis)
7.4.2.2
Commodore Formation
The input parameters and results for the Commodore Conventional and Unconventional discovered
and undiscovered STOIIP are detailed below in Table 7.8 to Table 7.11. The Conventional section is
defined as from top Commodore to a range of contacts defined as ODT 1253m TVDSS in the well
205/21a-4 and to the mapped Basement spill at 1380m TVDSS. The Unconventional section is
defined as the interval from the mapped spill to 1650m TVDSS, the deepest mapped Commodore.
The reservoir parameters are derived from the log analysis of the 205/21a-4 well, as described above.
The input parameters are the same for both the Conventional and Unconventional with the exception
the unconventional Sw range which was increased in the High case to reflect the increased depth of
the potential reservoir and the greater chance of encountering higher water saturations. The
Unconventional undiscovered interval below the mapped closure has been given a very low risk factor
of 90%. This is because the Commodore rests directly on the Unconventional Basement interval
where oil has been proved in well 205/21a-4.
Low
Contact Range Conventional (m)
Best
1252
High
1380
N:G (%)
13
30
Porosity (%)
18
22
26
Sw (%)
23
33
43
Bo (rb/stb)
1.2
Table 7.8 Lancaster Commodore Conventional Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case
Commodore
Low
Best
High
Mean
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
10
28
13
Table 7.9 RPS Estimated Commodore Conventional STOIIP in Lancaster (100% Basis)
16
ECV2055
29
RPS Energy
Low
Contact Range Unconventional (m)
Best
High
1380
1650
N:G (%)
13
30
Porosity (%)
18
22
26
Sw (%)
23
33
70
Bo (rb/stb)
1.2
Table 7.10 Lancaster Commodore Unconventional Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case
Low
Best
High
Mean
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
15
71
28
Commodore
GPoS
Risked Mean
MMstb
90%
25
Table 7.11 RPS Estimated Commodore Unconventional Undiscovered STOIIP in Lancaster

(100% Basis)
7.5
Reservoir Engineering
7.5.1
PVT/Fluids Data
A number of oil PVT samples have been taken during DST1 from well 205/21a-4 and during DST1
and DST2 from the sidetrack well 205/21a-4z. The properties of the selected samples from each DST
are summarized in the Table 7.12:
Depth
Well
name
DST
Sample
#
Reservoir
Opening
condition
C
Saturation
Pressure
(psia) @
56 oC
Oil FVF
(rb/stb)
Oil
Gravity
(API)
Solution
GOR
(scf/stb)
Gas
Gravity
Ft (m)
MDRKB
psia
psia
205/21a-4
1.08
3998
(1218.6)
N/A
N/A
4861
22
N/A
1.218
38.3
405
0.883
205/21a-4z
1.37
4374
(1333.2)
1839
56
7200
21
1589
N/A
38
413
0.911
205/21a-4z
2.53
4022
(1225.9)
1839
56
8350
22
1611
N/A
38.1
414
0.912
Table 7.12 Lancaster PVT Properties

RPS reviewed the properties of the selected samples and concluded that there is no gravity
segregation in the reservoir and the small differences seen in the GOR between samples can be
attributed to the different conditions at which the samples were opened to surface conditions. (i.e. the
higher the opening pressure the higher the GOR and the higher the gas gravity). The small
differences between the measured oil gravities for the selected samples are negligible and could be
caused by measurement error.
7.5.2
Rock Properties/SCAL
No core or SCAL data were available for Lancaster in either the basement of Commodore sandstone
sections. As production profiles have been generated based on assumed declines from analogue
fields, SCAL data is not necessary.
7.5.3
Well Tests
205/21-1a was the first well drilled on Lancaster by Shell in 1974, mainly targeting Mesozoic clastic
sediments overlying a major basement section. Three DSTs were run and the well flowed at a
o
maximum rate of 191 bbl water a day with a ~2% trace of 31-36 API oil.
17
RPS reviewed these test results in the 2008 RPS report and concluded that the water flow and
traces of oil from DST1 was most probably from fractured basement but could possibly from the
Valhall limestones. A further DST (DST3) was unequivocally from the Valhall Formation. At the time,
17
EVALUATION OF HURRICANE EXPLORATION PLC ASSETS, RPS May 2008.
ECV2055
30
RPS Energy
the results of both tests were thought to have confirmed the presence of some oil in fractures but did
not indicate the presence of any significant moveable oil volume or that fractured basement would be
a productive reservoir.
In September 2009, Hurricane drilled an appraisal well, 205/21a-4 to a total depth of 6,631 ft MD
(2,021 m MD), near the crest of the structure in an area of dense fracturing, to determine the potential
of the major seismic faults in the basement. Two DSTs were performed; DST1 was conducted across
the basement interval 4,854 6,631 ft MD (1,479.5 2,021 m MD). Numerous operational problems
18
were encountered and a complete account can be found in the Well Testing End of Well Report .
Once these issues were resolved, the well eventually flowed light oil (38 API) at rates of up to 1,367
bopd at 75% BS&W, with a total of 553 barrels of liquid recovered to surface (56 bbl oil, 497 bbl
water).
DST2 was conducted across the basement interval 4,854 5,651 ft MD (1,479.5 1,722.5 m MD).
Fewer problems were encountered on DST2 than on DST1, though a few minor issues still existed
and are also documented in the End of Well Report. The well eventually flowed light oil at rates of up
to 677 bopd at 85% BS&W, with a total of 224 bbl of oil and 1,287 bbl of water recovered to surface.
Unfortunately, the well was not cleaned up during either test, in part due to limited draw-down resulting
from rubber debris from a failed SenTREE Ball valve within the DST string and in part due to the
severe formation damage caused by the chosen drill-in fluid (Drilplex). These operational problems
resulted in a sub-optimal test. In addition, variable choke changes and constant switching between
tanks and separator did not allow for well stabilisation, which proved problematic for later well test
interpretation.
In June 2010, the Lancaster well was re-entered and sidetracked (205/21a-4z) using a balanced sea
water/brine drilling fluid. The reservoir was partially penetrated and DST1 performed in this upper
section. Light oil flowed from the well at the rates of ~2,000 bopd and with only traces of water
(15 bwpd). The PLT flow period produced a stabilised rate of ~2,500 bopd. The well was then
deepened and a second test (DST2) performed on the combined open-hole interval. The production
rates for DST2 were ~2,500 bopd and ~500 bwpd. Following this flow, a PLT was run to characterise
the flow profile.
7.5.3.1
Well Test Analysis
Due to the operational issues encountered during testing, the test data from the 2 DSTs conducted on
the 205/21a-4 well were not considered appropriate for analysis. However, both DSTs run in the sidetrack (205/21a-4z) provided good quality test data, including surface rates, down-hole and seabed
pressures and PLT data. They also consisted of a clean up flow period, main flow period, sampling
flow period and PLT flow period which were analysed and interpreted by RPS using Kappa
Engineering Well Test analysis software Ecrin V4.12.
The measured bottom-hole pressures are affected by tidal effects which have been corrected for by
RPS before interpretation. RPS used a dual porosity model with two flow boundaries, one no-flow and
one constant pressure, to model the reservoir performance and obtained very good matches on loglog, semi-log and pressure history of the well test data. The obtained boundary distances from the
well test results (~300 ft (90 m) &~800 ft (245 m)) are in good agreement with the distance to the
mapped top of basement and the geologically estimated oil/water contact OWC respectively along the
main (macro) fracture tested. The PLT and test results show that there is good connectivity between
pseudo-matrix (micro fractures) and macro fractures. The constant pressure boundary in the model
may also be an indication of the existence of an aquifer in the field.
The reservoir flow capacity, Kh (combination of reservoir net thickness and reservoir permeability) is
calculated to be 23,000 and 40,000 mD.ft for DST1 and DST2 respectively. The variation in flow
capacity in the two tests is due to the fact that the DST2 produced over a longer reservoir interval.
PLT analysis also showed that the upper section tested in DST1, which is connected to a volume of
increased reservoir mobility, was impaired in DST2 due to invasion of drilling mud while deepening the
well after DST1.
The calculated skin factor value was about 40. This high skin factor shows that the well was extremely
damaged. Therefore, higher flow rates would be expected if the well had not been damaged and also
if the upper section wasnt impaired by invasion when deepening the well. (See Appendix A for
18
Well Testing End of Well Report Lancaster Exploration 205/21a-4 (HEX-WE-REP-003), Senergy, December 2009
ECV2055
31
RPS Energy

19
related figures and tables) . RPS, therefore, carried on the well in-flow performance analysis at
different conditions to investigate the maximum potential of the well using the well test analysis results.
This analysis is summarized in Section 7.5.4.
7.5.4
Lancaster Production Performance Analysis
From the well test and the PLT analyses, RPS concludes that the majority of the Lancaster field
intervals are fractured, and that the major fractures contributing to the majority of production may not
in themselves contain the highest proportion of the potential reserves as the whole unit appears to be
fractured. Small-scale faults and micro-fractures contribute to both flow and potential reserves. In
addition, we conclude that the upper section of the reservoir has enhanced mobility and water was
produced via a fractured zone connected to a water leg and there is interconnectivity between pseudomatrix (micro-fractures) and the main macro fractures.
The initial reservoir pressure (~1,881 psia) obtained from well testing is very close to the reservoir oil
saturation pressure (bubble point pressure) of ~1,600 psia. Therefore, keeping the flowing bottomhole pressure above the bubble point pressure is essential for this kind of reservoir as if reservoir
pressure falls below the bubble point pressure (as a result of liquid and gas production), a sharp
increase in gas/oil ratio (GOR) and correspondingly sharp decline in oil-rate would be expected,
reducing oil recovery factor. However, the threat of pressure drop may be partially or fully
compensated by existence of an aquifer in the field, though the strength of this aquifer support is not
quantifiable at this stage.
During DST(2), well 205/21a-4z was producing from the impaired interval and was extremely
damaged.
RPS modelled the performance of a non-damaged inclined and a non-damaged horizontal well in the
field using the Prosper Nodal analysis package to estimate the maximum theoretical production
potential of the Lancaster field. RPS used the well 205/21a-4z, DST(2) well test analysis results as an
input for the nodal analysis work.
The PVT properties for the hydrocarbon fluid were matched with a Glaso correlation providing the best
fit for the main PVT properties and a Beal et al. correlation for oil viscosity. PETEX4 is used for the
tubing flow correlation. The correlation parameters are further tuned to match the bottom-hole flowing
pressure measured in the well (DST(2)). The selected dual porosity in-flow model was also adjusted
to match the actual rates and pressure data. The well performance indicated a productivity index of
~25 stb/day/psi with an Absolute Open Flow potential of ~8,720 stb/day for a skin factor of 23.
Having established a first pass productivity index, sensitivity cases were run by RPS to investigate the
effects of the fracture permeability, skin, drainage area, well-head pressure, interporosity flow
parameter (the ability of the matrix to flow into the fracture network, storativity ratio (the fraction of the
pore volume occupied by the fractures to the total interconnected pore volume), reservoir porosity and
water-cut on the oil production rate. The results showed that of the above parameters, skin, well-head
pressure and water-cut have the highest impacts on the oil production rate.
RPS then used the same model to estimate initial flow rates for an inclined and horizontal well.
For the base case sensitivities the following assumptions were made:
19
No friction loss in the wellbore
4.5 tubing with no restriction
No aquifer
Zero skin
Assume average reservoir permeability to be the same as well test result for whole reservoir
interval (~202 mD)
Assume minimum well-head pressure 500 psi (estimated requirement for FPSO flow lines+
separator entry)
Flowing interval of 2,000m for the horizontal well
Flowing interval of 176m (from DST(2) in 205/21a-4z) for the inclined well
Zero sand production
The summary of this well test analysis was presented as power point slides to Hurricane
ECV2055
32
RPS Energy
0% water cut
The results of the sensitivities show that the maximum theoretical rate varies between ~5,000 stb/day
for a inclined well and ~13,500 stb/day for a horizontal well.
5,000 bopd
Figure 7.10 Inclined Well Inflow Model
13,500 bopd
Figure 7.11 Horizontal Well Inflow Model
Based on this work, RPS has decided to use these rates for the 3C case, with lower rates for the 1C
and 2C cases to account for possible variations in reservoir properties and drawdown. Initial rates
used to calculate the revised production profiles are summarised in Table 7.13.
ECV2055
33
RPS Energy
1C
2C
3C
100% Uptime
50%/80%
20
Uptime
100% Uptime
50%/80%
20
Uptime
100% Uptime
50%/80%
20
Uptime
Surveillance
Well
2375
1188
3375
1688
5000
2500
Inclined Well
2375
1900
3375
2700
5000
4000
Horizontal
Well
6500
5200
10000
8000
13500
10800
Table 7.13 Initial rates (Barrels of oil per day) expected for Lancaster
7.5.5
Hurricane Further Appraisal and Development Plan
Hurricanes development plan has undergone significant revision since the 2011 CPR. The current
development plan is subdivided into two phases (Phase 1 and Phase 2). Phase 1 is designed to
evaluate the field, and will include a total of 6 subsea wells drilled from 4 drill centre locations.
Phase 1 drilling would comprise of the following wells:
1. Lancaster Horizontal Well LDC5-a: This will be the first horizontal well drilled on the structure.
The primary objective of the well is to define the potential delivery of a horizontal well. The
horizontal section will be located approximately 130-140m above structural closure of the field
and will target the fracture zones previously encountered by the 4 and 4z wells. The well will
be comprehensively logged and tested prior to being completed as a producer with a 1000m
horizontal section., Hurricane advises that a rig is being contracted to drill this well during the
summer of 2014.
2. Lancaster Surveillance Well LDC6-a: An inclined well drilled on the crest of the structure. The
main purpose of the well is to better define the fluid distribution within the basement at the
crest of the field. Mudlogging gas ratios from the 4 and 4z wells suggest that there is possibly
lighter oil above 1225m TVDSS and the surveillance well will be logged to assess this via mud
logging and wireline data. The well is also designed to intersect the potential aquifer so that
pressure measurements can be obtained to improve understanding about its presence and
strength. This well would be converted later on into a producer. The well is planned to be
drilled in 2015.
3. Lancaster Horizontal Wells LDC1-b: Well LDC1-b will be drilled from the same drill centre as
LDC5-a. As per LDC5-a, well plans will be finalised on the back of information acquired from
previous wells, and suspended as a producer. The well will be drilled in 2015.
4. Lancaster Horizontal Well LDC5-b: 5-b is intended to replicate the 5-a program. The well is
primarily designed to test the potential delivery from a set of basement fault zones that have
not yet been drilled to determine productivity in the northern edge of the field. The well will be
drilled approximately 130m above the structural closure to optimise oil recovery without risking
water coning. The well will be tested before being completed and suspended as a producing
well. The well is planned to be drilled and tested in 2017.
5. Lancaster Horizontal Well LDC1-a: Well LDC1-a will be drilled from a new drill centre location
on the east of the field. Well plans will be finalised on the back of information acquired from
previous wells, and suspended as a producer. The well will be drilled and tested in 2017.
6. Lancaster 201/21a-4z recompletion (LDC2-4z): 201/21a-4z will be re-entered as part of the
2017 campaign for completion as a producer. Clean up and flow periods will be conducted as
required, with possible acid stimulation to remove suspected cuttings build-up in the fractures
and potentially reduce the skin observed in previous well tests.
20
Note: Operating Efficiency is assumed to be 80% (85% + 3 week annual shutdown) for all wells with the exception of the
Surveillance well, which is expected to have a lower uptime (50%) due to additional shut-in periods for field pressure monitoring.
ECV2055
34
RPS Energy
The drilling order of the five new wells required prior to first oil is not currently fixed, but would likely be
as discussed above. Hurricane suggest that the proposed drilling schedule may permit them to
accelerate the Phase (1) development scenario with the potential for a full field first oil date earlier
st
than 1 January 2019.
Following first oil, production and well pressures will be monitored, with regular testing of the
surveillance well (LDC6-a) particularly and occasional testing of other wells. Dependent on the
performance of the 4z/LDC2-a well, an additional horizontal well (LDC-2b) may be drilled in Q2 2020
to increase production and provide additional well stock security if Hurricane feels there is sufficient
performance from the field to justify the well. If the 4z well is not performing as expected, this well
would not be drilled or would be deferred to Phase 2.
Phase 1 field monitoring is anticipated to last for 2 years, to the end of 2020. By the end of Phase 1
Hurricane expects to have enough understanding of the oil in place, existence of oil segregation and
existence of an aquifer to reach a decision on committal to Phase 2.
If oil is present only within conventional closure, just Phase 1 would be implemented. However, if data
collected during Phase 1 indicates that the Unconventional volumes are present and are being drained
by the existing well stock, then the Phase 2 development will be initiated.
Phase 2 would consist of additional production equipment being installed on the FPSO. This would
require moving the FPSO off station to an inshore location/quayside for the installation. This is
currently scheduled for Q4 2023/Q1 2024, with the FPSO back on station to commence Phase 2
production in Q2 2024.
Phase 2 would also consist of drilling of four additional wells:
1. LDC3-a: This inclined well would be drilled into the north west flank of the Lancaster structure
to test the Commodore sandstone and underlying basement. The well is anticipated to be
drilled in Q2 2021 after sanction of Phase 2 and will come on stream in Q3 2021 to use up
ullage capacity of the Phase 1 facilities.
2. LDC4-a: This inclined well will be drilled into the eastern Lancaster structure to identify the
height of hydrocarbon column outside of the structural closure. This will be the final appraisal
well drilled on the structure and is dependent on the success of previous wells and proving up
of the unconventional volumes. The well is anticipated to be drilled in Q2 2021 coming on
stream in Q3 2021 to use up ullage capacity of the Phase 1 facilities.
3. LDC3-b: Following completion of the appraisal activities in 2021, LDC3-b will be drilled and
tested if LDC3-a is a success. The well is expected to be drilled as part of the 2022/23 Phase
2 development drilling campaign and will come on stream in 2024 after the FPSO has been
upgraded.
4. LDC4-b: Following completion of the appraisal activities in 2021, LDC4-b will be drilled and
tested if LDC4-a is a success. The well is expected to be drilled as part of the 2022/23 Phase
2 development drilling campaign and will come on stream in 2024 after the FPSO has been
upgraded.
The different schedules for the 2 cases are summarised in (Table 7.14):
2014
DRILL
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
DRILL
DRILL
DRILL
DRILL
Re-enter
PHASE 1 ON PRODUCTION
DRILL ON STREAM
DRILL ON STREAM
DRILL
DRILL
DRILL ON STREAM
6w
7w
8W
PHASE 2
SHUT IN PERIOD
LDC5-a
LDC6-a
LDC1-b
LDC5-b
LDC1-a
LDC2-4z
LCD3-a
LDC4-a
LCD3-b
LDC4-b
LDC2-B
ON STREAM
ON STREAM
10W ON STREAM
Wells with the same colour indicate that are drilled from the same drill center
Table 7.14 Phase 1 and 2 Development Schedules
ECV2055
35
RPS Energy
7.5.6
Recoverable Volumes
As described in Section 7.4.1, the Basement reservoir is sub-divided into Conventional and
Unconventional intervals. Conventional resources are defined as hydrocarbons above a mapped
closure. The Unconventional intervals are those in which hydrocarbons have been demonstrated to
be present or considered to be present, the latter being undiscovered, below structural closure.
RPS classifies the Resource volumes for the Conventional and Unconventional intervals as follows:
Discovered Conventional Main and East Contingent Resources Development Pending
Discovered Unconventional Main and East Contingent Resources Development Pending
Undiscovered Unconventional Main and East Prospective Resources
RPS used the information obtained from the selected analogues discussed in Section 6.2 and its
experience to estimate the likely recovery factors and hence Resource volumes for the Conventional
and Unconventional intervals. Table 7.15 and Table 7.16 show the technically recoverable volumes
for Phase 1 (Conventional Only) and Phase 2 (Conventional & Unconventional) cases presented
before any economic limit test (ELT) is applied. Associated gas volumes are calculated based on a
constant producing GOR of 405/scf/stb.
In these estimations RPS assumed that:
Artificial lift (gaslift) will be available on all producing wells.
Oil rates will be curtailed from the maximum flow potential of each well to avoid water coning;
No water injection is planned for the Lancaster field;
Facilities will be designed to handle water production from start-up;
Hurricane will perform well interventions at regular intervals to stimulate the producing wells as
and when required. This is based on the observation, drawn from some of the analogue
21
fields that, as production continues, skin increases near the wellbore resulting in a decrease
in well productivity and an associated decline in well production. Therefore periodic
stimulation of producing wells, for example by acid wash, will be required to maintain the
declines used in evaluating the reserves.
In addition, Hurricane are currently examining various options for drilling and completion design of the
Lancaster wells to improve well performance, based on the experiences of other operators with
basement oil producing assets. This is discussed further in Section 7.6.
Resource
Conventional
(Main)
Low
Best
High
1C
2C
3C
Contingent Resources
(MMstb)
1C
2C
3C
115
204
314
20
30
42
23
STOIIP (MMstb)
Recovery Factor (%)
61
132
Table 7.15 Lancaster Main Conventional Only Case Contingent Resources with 80% uptime
Low
Best
High
1C
2C
3C
(MMstb)
1C
2C
3C
143
258
411
20
29
39
28
74
161
328
798
1665
10
16
17
32
126
276
470
1056
2076
13
19
21
60
200
437
Resource
Discovered
Conventional
Discovered
Unconventional
2
Total Discovered
STOIIP (MMstb)
Recovery Factor (%)
Notes
1 Lancaster Main + East + Commodore
2 Arithmetic total
Table 7.16 Lancaster Estimated Contingent Resources with 80% uptime

21
Improved Oil Recovery for Fractured Granite Basement Reservoirs: Historical Lessons, Successful Application and Possibility
for Improvement, Dang, C.T.Q et al, SPE 144148 prepared for SPE European Formation Damage Conference, Noordwijk,
Netherlands, June 2011
ECV2055
36
RPS Energy
30000
120
25000
100
20000
80
15000
60
10000
40
5000
20
Q (stb/d)
140
0
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
2065
2070
2075
2080
2085
2090
2095
Cumulative production (MMstb/d)
Downside Case
35000
0
2100
Year
1C Oil Rate
2C Oil Rate
3C Oil Rate
1C Cumulative
2C Cumulative
3C Cumulative
Figure 7.12 Production Profile for Lancaster Conventional Only case with 80% uptime
Base Case
70000
500
450
60000
50000
350
300
Q (stb/d)
40000
250
30000
200
Cumulative production (MMstb/d)
400
150
20000
100
10000
50
0
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
2065
2070
2075
2080
2085
2090
2095
0
2100
Year
1C Oil Rate
2C Oil Rate
3C Oil Rate
1C Cumulative
2C Cumulative
3C Cumulative
Figure 7.13: Production Profile Forecast for Lancaster Base Case (Conventional +
Unconventional Main + East) with 80% uptime
ECV2055
37
RPS Energy
In addition to the Base Case Contingent Resources tabulated in Table 7.16 and the Conventional Only
Case Contingent Resources in Table 7.15, Undiscovered Unconventional Prospective Resources in
Lancaster are estimated as follows (Table 7.17):
STOIIP (MMstb)
Resource
Unconventional
Basement
(Main and East)
Commodore
Total Prospective
22
Resource
Recovery Factor (%)
(MMstb)
Low
Best
High
Low
Best
High
Low
Best
High
271
867
1956
14
52
137
15
71
0.1
0.9
272
882
2027
14
53
142
Table 7.17 - Prospective Resources for Lancaster with 80% uptime and GPoS of 10% for the
Basement and 90% for Commodore
RPS assigned a GPoS of 10% to the Basement and 90% to the Commodore Formation.
Production forecast data for the 1C, 2C and 3C categories for both the Base Case and Conventional
Only Case are detailed in Appendix B along with estimated development plan cost data.
7.6
Lancaster Drilling and Completion Design
As can be seen from the work conducted by Hurricane to date, the majority of work performed relating
to Lancaster has been aimed at assessing/appraising the geology of the field. As a result, the
geological risks are reasonably well constrained at the present time. Therefore, the main risks
associated with any development of Lancaster are related to the reservoir and production engineering
issues, including the mechanical aspects of well design and completion.
RPS recognises that Hurricane, AGR, Axis Well Technology, Aurora Bit Company, EPC Offshore
(independent engineering and project management) and others have worked iteratively to examine
options for drilling and completion design aimed at mitigating the main perceived risks with developing
the field, which are:
1. Ability to drill the proposed 2,000m horizontal section production wells within the fractured
basement safely (given potential for drilling fluid losses associated with drilling fractured
reservoirs)
2. Preventing substantial formation damage (skin) during drilling;
3. Ability to achieve commercially viable production rates from the producing wells at low
drawdowns, in order to minimise potential water influx via fracture network connection to the
underlying water leg;
4. Ability to lift the produced oil/water to the surface facilities at low drawdowns;
5. Achieving suitable drainage of the unconventional oil in place without direct access via well
stock.
Point 1 is currently being addressed by Hurricanes Managed Pressure Drilling studies, as described
below (Section 7.6.1). This will also address Point 2, as successful balanced drilling and good hole
cleaning should mitigate against drilling damage to the well.
The use of long horizontal section production wells should allow for commercial flow rates to be
achieved at low drawdowns, and completion design should also assist in minimising potential water
influx (Point 3).
The ability to lift the oil at low drawdowns (Point 4) will be addressed by installing gaslift from start-up
(Section 7.6.2).
22
volumes. Only the sum of the mean values will be statistically correct
ECV2055
38
RPS Energy
Achieving a suitable drainage of the unconventional oil in place is still an issue and is not easily
resolved without production data to assess how well the reservoir is being drained. However,
drainage of the conventional oil should still allow for an economically attractive development.
7.6.1
Horizontal Drilling and Managed Pressure Drilling
The proposed development plan assumes the use of 2000m long horizontal producing wells in order
to allow for low drawdowns (primarily to prevent coning of water via fractures from deeper in the
reservoir) while still achieving commercially viable production rates.
Hurricanes previous drilling experience on Lancaster has included the use of drilling fluids specifically
designed to prevent drilling losses in fractured reservoirs. The 205/21a-4 well was drilled using MI
SWACOs Drilplex mud system, which is designed to be a water-base drilling fluid whose unique
viscoelastic properties make it ideal for an array of applications. The system acts as a liquid under
23
shear and as a solid when at rest, thereby delivering excellent hole cleaning and fracture sealing.
The well was successfully drilled with minimal fluid losses using this mud system. However, testing on
the well resulted in lower than expected oil rates with high water cut (Section 7.5.4). Subsequent lab
testing using produced separator water and dead crude samples with samples of Drilplex showed
that Drilplex preferentially inhibits oil flow in comparison to water flow. During pressure
24
differential testing dead crude oil did not displace Drilplex but passed through the fluid as slugs.
As a result, the sidetrack 205/21a-4z was drilled with a Seawater/NaCl brine mud system and using
the new Weatherford ECD-RT (Equivalent Circulating Density Reduction Tool), which is designed to
25
reduce bottom hole pressure during drilling . However, the ECD-RT is new technology (this was only
the 2nd time the tool had been run in the North Sea) and while initially the ECD-RT appeared to work
correctly, while drilling 8 hole 4,583 4,673 ft MDBRT (1397 1424 m MDBRT), tool function was
observed to be deteriorating and the decision was made to remove the tool from the drill string before
the main fault/fracture zones were drilled. The End of Well Report (EOWR) for 205/21a-4z concludes
that The tool worked well to begin with and with the right mud system could be advantageous to run
this tool again. However until these problems are investigated it is recommended that the tool not be
26
used for the next well.
Once drilling continued, no losses were observed while drilling through the first fault/fracture zone,
presumably because the well was on balance. However, small losses were observed after DST(1)
and while drilling through the second fault/fracture zone, losses increased at various points, getting up
to 12-15 bbl/hour. Maximum losses while drilling were observed while tripping out the BHA (Bottom
Hole Assembly) after drilling through the second fault zone. Additionally, the well also experienced an
8 bbl kick after displacing to an 8.7 ppg mud following cementing of the 9 5/8 casing string which was
circulated out using the well control procedures and the mud weight was subsequently increased to
8.9 ppg (pounds per gallon) before drilling on with further losses.
While these losses are within all drilling contractor limits prior to requiring Well Control Policy
exemptions (currently 50 bbl/hour), the losses were experienced with a maximum open hole section of
619 ft MD (189 m MD) (between Open Hole TD and 9 5/8 casing shoe) and were typically associated
with the main fault/fracture zones. Drilling of a horizontal well with a 6,561 ft (2,000 m) horizontal
section would result in over 10 times the formation exposure seen on wells drilled to date, and likely
exposure to more of these large fault/fracture zones. While this does not necessarily indicate that
losses would be higher while drilling these sections, the possibility does exist.
Following these experiences, Hurricane has spent some effort on examining Managed Pressure
Drilling (MPD) options for use on Lancaster, with the assistance of Blade Energy Partners. Blade
conducted a study on the feasibility of using 2 different approaches to MPD and a Basis of Design for
27
the MPD systems required . The report examines two fluid systems (a two phase sea water/nitrogen
23
MI SWACO website: http://www.slb.com/services/miswaco/services/drilling_fluid/df_systems/water_base/drilplex.aspx#
24
Reservoir Conditions Coreflood Study designed and performed for AXIS Well Technology on behalf of Hurricane Exploration
on Drilplex samples supplied by MI Swaco, Well 205/21a-4 of the Lancaster Field, Patey, I. et al. (Corex), February 2010
25
Weatherford/BP ECD Reduction Tool Presentation, Bansal, Grayson & Stanley, Drilling Engineering Associaton 4th Qtr
Meeting, 20 Nov. 2008.
26
Lancaster 205/21a-4z Drilling End of Well Report, Rev. 1, Sutherland, J., December 2010
27
Technical Feasibility of Managed Pressure Drilling Lancaster Appraisal Well, Basis of Design Final Report V1, Blade
Energy Partners, Houston TX, May 2011.
ECV2055
39
RPS Energy
drilling fluid and a mineral oil based drilling fluid) with RCD or riser pressure control system and
continuous circulation to minimize the bottom hole pressure overbalance while drilling.
The Blade Report concludes that Both MPD approaches will considerably reduce, but not eliminate
the occurrence of losses while drilling in the Lewisian basement. It is not possible to navigate the
narrow drilling window for the duration of the proposed 4,900 ft (~1,500m) horizontal section, but the
magnitude by which the fracture pressure is exceeded is greatly decreased when compared to a
conventional approach.
However, the report also notes that both systems have substantial drawbacks. The two phase sea
water/nitrogen system delivers the best annular pressure profile, but requires a large amount of
equipment on board, including nitrogen generating systems, a large crew and higher cost as a result,
while the mineral oil based system would require special regulatory approval and a zero discharge
environment.
The Blade report concludes that additional work would be required to land on the correct method, but
that The technical analysis conducted revealed acceptable values of set down weight, overpull and
torque, indicating that the desired open hole horizontal reach of 6,121 ft (1,865m) is attainable, close
to the planned 2,000 m (6,561 ft) well length.
In parallel to Hurricanes review of MPD techniques they have also looked at conventional solutions to
reducing losses and mitigating the effects of formation damage using a combination of hydrodynamic
modelling during the drilling phase and acidification of the reservoir prior to testing. These two
techniques are planned to be implemented on the Lancaster LDC-5a well.
7.6.2
Completion Design
Hurricane has also spent some time examining possible completion design options for the producing
28
wells. A Completion Design Review report written for Hurricane by Waterside International
conducted a review of completion philosophies used by various operators in the Cuu Long basin
(offshore Vietnam) and how these could be used in Lancaster.
The report recommended that Hurricane adopt a pro-active reservoir management approach,
involving the use of a remotely controlled, selective completion (that) could be a simple on-off
control, or the ability to choke the well depending on reservoir conditions. In addition, the efficient
operation of this type of completion requires real-time measurement of downhole flowing conditions on
each individual zone in the well.
RPS disagrees with this conclusion. The zonal control used in selectively controlled completions
relies on swell packers to isolate different sections of the fracture network within the wellbore.
However, the extensive nature of the fracturing observed in the Lancaster wells, combined with the
spherical flow regime observed during well testing and the PLT results from the 4z well, which
demonstrated interconnected flow of the formation between the main fault/fracture zones (pseudomatrix or micro fracture system), suggest that there is no local isolation of fractures within the
basement and therefore closing off one section of the completion, for example if water influx is
observed, would simply result in the water bypassing the isolating swell packer via the fracture
network behind pipe and entering the well in the next completed section instead.
As a result of discussions between Hurricane and RPS, Hurricanes current preferred completion
option is a simple barefoot or slotted liner option with no selective completion used. While this
removes the possibility of controlling water influx to the well, it is quicker and easier (and hence
cheaper) to install and does not require the extensive downhole monitoring or control equipment
associated with selective completion technology. Potential water influx will be mitigated by the use of
gas lift equipment in the wells to ensure any produced water can be lifted to surface, where water
treatment facilities will be installed from production startup to handle any associated water production
encountered. The primary mitigation is the use of long horizontal wells to allow a low drawdown while
still achieving commercially viable oil rates, which should reduce the possibility of water coning up the
fault/fracture zones.
Hurricane is currently further developing this completion design option.
28
Basement Reservoir completion Review, Waterside International, 26 May 2011
ECV2055
40
RPS Energy
7.7
Lancaster Risk Assessment
As described in the previous sections, Lancaster is a discovery and, as such, is assigned a significant
quantity of Contingent Resources (Development Pending). The chance of development is contingent
on resolving the following uncertainties:
Fracture propensity and distribution.
Interconnectivity of fracture network (pending interference testing)
OWC uncertainties
Demonstration of commercial flow rates from a well test.
Demonstration that drilling of the proposed horizontal wells is possible.
Water production rates and subsequent water handling requirements.
Hurricanes current appraisal programme of an inclined surveillance well and horizontal well is aimed
at addressing these issues.
In addition, the nature of the reservoir and trap means that an, as yet, undiscovered volume of
potential Resources are prognosed to exist below the current discovered volumes. Therefore,
Lancaster is also assigned a volume of Prospective Resources, which has an associated GPoS
(chance of discovery) of 4.5%.
ECV2055
41
RPS Energy
8. WHIRLWIND
8.1
Summary
The Whirlwind field is located on the northern flank of the Rona Ridge, West of Shetland, about 10 km
north of Lancaster, (Figure 3.1). In common with Lancaster the main reservoir is fractured basement
of which 138 m were penetrated by the well 205/21a-5 in September 2010. The overlying limestone,
of the Valhall Formation, is also of reservoir quality and was found to be 132 m TVT in the well. Well
205/21a-5 penetrated both reservoirs and, although hydrocarbons were encountered, the well could
not be tested at the time of drilling due to weather and operational constraints. The well was reentered in the autumn of 2011. The results from the well test proved to be ambiguous in that it was
not clear if the recovered hydrocarbons were volatile oil or gas condensate.
8.2
The mapping rationale is the same as described for Lancaster, see Section 7.2.3. The major
structural difference is that Whirlwind is located 2000 m deeper, at about 3000 m, at the base of the
main scarp on the Rona Ridge, Figure 8.1. The Whirlwind Basement depth structure map is shown
(Figure 8.2).
Whirlwind
205/22-1a
NW
SE
Seabed
Pliocene - Recent
Balder
Tertiary
Rona Ridge
& Lancaster
discovery
Maastrichtian
Kyrre
Campanian
Cenomanian
Lower Cret
Basement
Valhall
Oil down to lowest closing
contour (4 way dip trap)
Jurassic
WHIRLWIND PROSPECT
KCF
After Hurricaine
RONA RIDGE
Figure 8.1 Structural relationship of Whirlwind to Lancaster
3230m TVDSS
3400m TVDSS
Prospective Closure
3176m TVDSS ODT

in well 205/22-1a
Range: 3176
3200m TVDSS
ECV2055
42
RPS Energy
Figure 8.2 Whirlwind Basement Depth Structure map showing closure areas
RPS reviewed Hurricanes seismic interpretation of the Valhall Formation Limestone which is the oil
bearing formation overlying the Basement reservoir. The seismic tie to the well 205/22-1a was good.
Hurricanes interpretation away from the well on the crest of the Basement structure was robust. RPS
considered that the depth structure of the limestone was reasonable with respect to the depth
converted Basement surface which was in good agreement to RPS Basement. In Figure 8.3 A the
schematic shows the relationship of the Valhall with the Basement and Figure 8.3 B is the Valhall
depth structure map.
3400m TVDSS
Unconventional
Closure
3038m TVDSS ODT
Valhall pinchout
W
Onlap of Valhall Lst and

pinchout on to Basement
structure
Whirlwind 205/21a-5
3038m TVDSS
Valhall ODT in 205/21a-5
3200m TVDSS
3400m TVDSS
After Hurricane
3200m TVDSS
Basement Spill
Figure 8.3 A & B A: Schematic of relationship of Valhall to Basement; B: Valhall depth

structure map with closure areas
8.3
Geological Model
The geological model for the fractured basement is the same as employed for Lancaster. RPS agrees
with the Hurricane view that there is no discernible difference in the fault density between Whirlwind
and Lancaster and therefore RPS adopted the fault zone/pseudo-matrix proportions determined from
our Ant-tracking analysis of the Lancaster structure, as described in Section 7.3.
29
The Valhall Limestone deposited in a marine shelf environment with evidence for reefal build-up .The
unit on-laps the Basement structure on the west flank of the Whirlwind structure pinching out onto the
crest.
8.3.1
Reservoir Properties
The reservoir properties for the Basement were as for Lancaster. For the overlying Limestone RPS
reviewed the log analysis conducted by Schlumberger and concurred with their analysis. Porosity
values were calculated to be in the range 1-3%. It is possible that these are underestimated due to
fracturing in the Limestone but at this stage it is our view that the logs are of good quality and should
be honoured. The evaluation of water saturations was based on the porosity being predominantly
from fracturing which is reflected in the relatively low saturation values.
29
Ichron A Biostratigraphic Evaluation of well 205/21a-1A..., Feb 2011
ECV2055
43
RPS Energy
8.4
Whirlwind Volumetrics
The volumetric approach to Whirlwind was the same as adopted for Lancaster with reservoir
properties defined for the fault zones and pseudo-matrix. As was the case with Lancaster,
Conventional and Unconventional volumes were identified.
The 205/21a-5 well test showed the hydrocarbon type in Whirlwind to be ambiguous. It is not clear if
the hydrocarbons were volatile oil or gas condensate. The well test evaluation is detailed in section
7.5.1. Volumetrics were run for both an oil case, and for a gas condensate case.
8.4.1
Contacts
For the Conventional, a Hydrocarbon Down To (HDT) was defined at the base of well 205/21a-5, at
3176m TVDSS. These were input into the probabilistic analysis minimum and maximum with a lognormal distribution. The maximum Conventional contact was taken at the mapped Basement spill,
3200m TVDSS. This depth also equates to the oil depth in the Rona sand in well 205/22-1a. For the
Unconventional, Hurricane assumed a 200m section below the mapped closure. This can be
considered to be conservative when compared to the Discovered Unconventional 400m section
demonstrated in Lancaster. RPS adopted the Undiscovered Unconventional section as defined by
Hurricane as being reasonable. For the overlying Valhall Limestone, (Figure 8.3), a minimum
Conventional closure of 3038m TVDSS, an HDT in well 205/21a-5, was used with the same maximum
Conventional closure as the Basement, 3200m TVDSS. The Unconventional contacts were the same
as used for the Unconventional Basement
In Whirlwind, the source-rock/reservoir juxtaposition is considered to be less favourable below the
Conventional closure than in Lancaster because it does not have a 'deep flank' adjoining the kitchen
area. As a result the potential deeper contact used in Lancaster for the Undiscovered Unconventional
Lancaster volumes is not considered valid for Whirlwind.
8.4.2
Hydrocarbons In-Place Inputs and Results
Table 8.1 below details the input parameters used to determine the range of Conventional STOIIP or
WGIIP (Wet Gas Initially In Place).
Low
Contact Range (m)
Best
3176
High
3200
Proportion PM %
64
Proportion FZ %
36
Porosity PM (%)
Porosity FZ (%)
10
Sw PM (%)
10
20
Sw FZ (%)
10
Bo (rb/stb)
1.86
1/Bg(scf/cf)
2.3
275
Table 8.1 Whirlwind Conventional Basement Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case
shown in Table 8.2 for the oil case and Table 8.3 for the gas condensate case.
Basement
Low
Best
High
Mean
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
205
371
571
382
Table 8.2 RPS Estimated Conventional Basement STOIIP in Whirlwind (100% Basis)
ECV2055
44
RPS Energy
Basement
Low
Best
High
Mean
Bscf
Bscf
Bscf
Bscf
669
1188
1809
1220
Table 8.3 RPS Estimated Conventional Basement WGIIP in Whirlwind (100% Basis)
The input parameters and results for the Basement Unconventional undiscovered STOIIP or WGIIP
are detailed in Table 8.4 to Table 8.6 below.
The GPoS for the Unconventional was set at 50% with all the risking placed on the effectiveness of
the trap below the structural spill.
Low
Best
High
3201
3299
3400
Proportion PM %
64
Proportion FZ %
36
Porosity PM (%)
0.5
Porosity FZ (%)
Sw PM (%)
30
50
70
Sw FZ (%)
10
Bo (rb/stb)
1.86
2.3
Bg (scf/cf)
275
Table 8.4 Whirlwind Unconventional Basement Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case
Basement
Low
Best
High
Mean
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
48
216
547
266
GPoS
Risked Mean
MMstb
50%
133
Table 8.5 RPS Estimated Undiscovered Unconventional Basement STOIIP in Whirlwind (100%
Basis)
Basement
Low
Best
High
Mean
Bscf
Bscf
Bscf
Bscf
153
702
1739
849
GPoS
Risked Mean
Bscf
50%
424.5
Table 8.6 RPS Estimated Undiscovered Unconventional Basement WGIIP in Whirlwind (100%
Basis)
The Valhall Limestone reservoir input parameters and results for both the Conventional and
Unconventional are given in Table 8.7 to Table 8.12 below.
The GPoS for the Unconventional interval of the Valhall was also estimated at 50% for the same
reasons as the underling Basement, being outside structural closure.
Low
Best
High
3038
N:G (%)
100
100
100
Porosity (%)
Sw (%)
10
15
Bo (rb/stb)
Bg (scf/cf)
3200
1.86
2.3
275
Table 8.7 Whirlwind Limestone Conventional Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case
ECV2055
45
RPS Energy
Low
Best
High
Mean
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
14
38
81
44
Valhall Lst
Table 8.8 RPS Estimated Conventional Limestone STOIIP in Whirlwind (100% Basis)
Low
Best
High
Mean
Bscf
Bscf
Bscf
Bscf
43
122
258
139
Valhall Lst
Table 8.9 RPS Estimated Conventional Limestone WGIIP in Whirlwind (100% Basis)
Low
Best
High
Contact Range Unconventional (m)
3201
N:G (%)
100
100
100
15
Porosity (%)
Sw (%)
Bo (rb/stb)
3400
1.86
25
2.3
Bg (scf/cf)
275
Table 8.10 Whirlwind Limestone Unconventional Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case
Low
Best
High
Mean
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
28
13
Valhall Lst
GPoS
Risked Mean
MMstb
50%
Table 8.11 RPS Estimated Limestone Undiscovered Unconventional STOIIP in Whirlwind

(100% Basis)
Low
Best
High
Mean
Bscf
Bscf
Bscf
Bscf
30
92
41
Valhall Lst
GPoS
Risked Mean
Bscf
50%
21
Table 8.12 RPS Estimated Limestone Undiscovered Unconventional WGIIP in Whirlwind

(100% Basis)
8.5
8.5.1
PVT/Fluids Data
The Whirlwind 205/21a-5 well was tested in October 2011. The well produced oil, gas and brine and
was sampled at the surface and down hole. The hydrocarbon stream produced at a very large drawdown such that it is extremely likely there was two-phase flow near the wellbore and the obtained
GOR (Min.: ~ 21MMscf/bbl) is unreliable for re-combination of the separator gas and oil samples in
order to re-produce a representative fluid at reservoir conditions. The down-hole samples are also
inconclusive because they were not sampled at the true GOR/CGR either (even if they are not
contaminated).
The chemistry of the produced brine is compatible with being a combination of spent acid and drill-in
brine. There is no evidence of any significant formation water contribution to the water produced. The
well produced back only a fraction of the aqueous fluids lost or injected into the well.
ECV2055
46
RPS Energy
The specific gravity of separator oil and gas samples measured during the test on separator
30
condition in the range of 0.736 to 0.777. The specific gravity of the produced oil (at 59F), taken
from a mixture of oil and aqueous phase, was also measured by the well site chemist, on board
specifically at the request of Hurricane, in the range of 0.793 to 0.813. As can be seen there are
differences between these two ranges which will require reconciliation. It is Hurricanes view that
results of the well site chemist are the most reliable.
As will be explained in well test section (Section 8.5.3) the well was producing in an un-stabilized
condition. At this un-stabilized condition with no availability of PVT data, it is very hard to classify the
reservoir fluid type.
Gas condensate accumulations may be approximately defined as those which produce light coloured
or colourless stock tank liquids with gravities above 45API at gas oil ratios in the range of 5000 to
31
100,000 scf/bbl . However, proper classification of accumulations depends on:
The composition of the hydrocarbon accumulation
The temperature and pressure of the accumulation in the reservoir
While the temperatures and pressures generally increase with depth, a wide variety of pressuretemperature combinations can be found in naturally occurring accumulations. As a result of this, there
are no distinct dividing lines between the types into which accumulations may be divided.
Based on the well test data, the hydrocarbon produced at the surface at a very high GOR, can be
considered either as a gas condensate or could be classified as a critical to volatile oil. This is a result
of there being no pressure or fluid stabilization during the test and also the GOR decreasing with time.
However, whether close-to-critical volatile oil or gas condensate, the hydrocarbon fluid is liquid rich.
In conclusion, it is RPSs view that the data supplied to date are not sufficient to unambiguously define
the reservoir fluid and further appraisal is required to resolve the issue. As a result, RPS has
calculated Resource estimates for both a volatile oil case and a gas condensate case representing the
likely end-members of the possible fluid types that may exist in the reservoir.
For the gas condensate case, the gas condensate formation volume factor (Bg) at initial reservoir
32
pressure (5100 psia) and reservoir temperature (106C) is estimated to be 0.00363 cf/scf using a
produced gas gravity (0.69 to 0.71) and standard correlation.
For the volatile oil case, the range of oil formation factor, at the reservoir temperature and pressure
33
34
were estimated using Standing correlation at different range of oil gravity (0.78 to 0.8) and GOR
(3000 to 5000 scf/stb) as 1.86 to 2.3 rb/stb. The selected range of GOR is the typical range of GOR
for close-to critical volatile oil. This range of GOR is selected because the produced GOR is not
representative of the actual GOR which can be obtained when there is only one phase near the
wellbore.
RPS also recognises that further evidence of the fluid type is available from data other than well-test
data. Specifically, it is noted that the geochemical analysis of the side-wall cores suggests light oil.
The well 205/22-1a, drilled by BP into the flank of the structure encountered light oil in the Rona Sand
which overlies the Basement reservoir. The offset BP 204/23-1 well, to the west of Whirlwind, which
tested gas condensate (48.3 API condensate) had no indication of oil shows in the cored fractured
basement interval tested. Whirlwind, as mentioned above, has oil shows which may add weight to the
fluid being light oil.
8.5.2
No core or SCAL data were available for Whirlwind in either the basement or Valhall limestone
sections.
30
The average separator temperature and pressure during the measurements were 63 F and 131 psia respectively.
31
Applied petroleum reservoir engineering, 2nd edition , B.C. Craft, M. Hawkins
32
Applied petroleum reservoir engineering, 2nd Edition, B.C. Craft, M. Hawkins
33
Phase Behaviour, Curtis H. Whistson, Michael R. Brule
34
To cover uncertainty in the oil gravity measurements
ECV2055
47
RPS Energy
8.5.3
Well Tests
In 1974, BP drilled 205/22-1a on the southern side of the Whirlwind structure and found oil overlying
the basement in non-reservoir sandstone. In 2010 Hurricane drilled another well (205/21a-5) and
found indications of oil in the thick Valhall limestone and the underlying fractured basement. However,
onset of bad weather meant the well had to be suspended before it could be tested.
The 205/21a-5 well is a deviated well with a maximum inclination of 57 degrees. The top of the Valhall
limestone is at 3,023m MD, with the top basement at 3,250m MD. Overlying this is a thick seal
comprised of claystone with limestone stringers. A vertical column height of 270 m is present in the
limestone and basement sections.
The well was re-entered and tested in October 2011. The tested interval failed to flow initially but saw
a prolonged pressure leak-off following acid (hydrochloric acid) stimulation. The well had to be
unlatched for a period during the test whilst waiting on weather following the acid stimulation. This
allowed two important things to occur:
The acid had time to spend itself
.and,
A long pressure fall-off was recorded.
Following the re-latch, the well flowed with gradually increasing hydrocarbon cut but at a very high
draw-down (see Figure 8.4), which, later in the flow period, appeared to be approaching but not
reaching stabilisation. Significant efforts were made at the surface to keep the well unloading (choke
changes etc) and to sample recovered liquids, gas and water. However, the well had to be shut-in
due to the forecast weather conditions.
Measured pressure @ 2993.5 (m MD)

6000
5500
5000
4500
Pressure (Pisa)
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Gas
production
sampling
Oil and gas production
0
12/10/2 12/10/2 12/10/2 12/10/2 12/10/2 13/10/2 13/10/2 13/10/2 13/10/2 13/10/2 14/10/2 14/10/2 14/10/2 14/10/2 14/10/2 15/10/2 15/10/2 15/10/2
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
00:00 04:48 09:36 14:24 19:12 00:00 04:48 09:36 14:24 19:12 00:00 04:48 09:36 14:24 19:12 00:00 04:48 09:36
Figure 8.4 Whirlwind 205/21a-5 well measured bottom hole pressure history
A key unknown is which intervals contributed to the flow. A large volume of hydrocarbons are
associated with the Valhall and the less fractured basement intervals, so it is important to know if
these intervals contributed in the flow or not. Further appraisal is required to resolve this. However,
we note that in Lancaster, the basement is highly fractured and the 2010 sidetrack had flow
contribution throughout the basement interval. The hope is that there is potential for the same to
occur at Whirlwind, but it is also possible that any flow could be confined to discrete main fault zones
with little contribution from the pseudo-matrix which at the shallower depths of the Lancaster discovery
appear to be open to flow and contribute to production, albeit at a slower rate than the main faults and
fractures.
The possibility of the existence of two-phase flow near the wellbore (i.e. gas and liquid) and onephase flow (gas) away from the wellbore can be seen in the log-log plot of the final build-up (Figure
8.5) as the two radial flow stabilization lines. This may be a good indication of a gas condensate
reservoir producing below its dew point pressure near the wellbore as is seen in many gas condensate
reservoirs. However, the first stabilisation line may also be due to the limited entry. As can be seen
ECV2055
48
RPS Energy
from Figure 8.4, the pressure at the end of build-up was around 800 psi lower than prior to the start of
flow. Prior to the re-entry it had been calculated from offset data and the single MDT point that
the reservoir was some 2000 psi over pressured. This turned out to be an erroneous assumption that
has lead to the 1000 psi overbalanced as the Whirlwind reservoir pressure is estimated at 1000 psi
over pressure. This fact, combined with the 50 degree hole angle (a very poor angle for hole cleaning)
and brine (limited cuttings lifting capability therefore poor hole cleaning capability), would indicate that
there may be near well bore blocking resulting from the ingress of cuttings into the permeable fracture
system. This would result in a small fraction of the test interval being open to flow. This effect can be
seen as the first radial stabilization line on the pressure derivative log-log plot Figure 8.5).
Two phase or well with

limited entry
g
sin
a
e
r
Inc
s
res
p
m
co
id
flu
lity
ibi
Radial flow stabilization
Figure 8.5 Log-log plot of final build-up
8.5.4
Production Performance Analysis
During the well test, well 205/21a-5 flowed for a short period of time (~one day) and was in its cleanup period at 87% water cut at shut-in and produced 36.5 bbl oil, 6.8 MMscf gas and 11.8 bbl water. At
the same choke size, the gas flow rate was decreasing, oil production rate increasing and accordingly
the GOR was decreasing with time. This means the well was producing in an un-stabilized condition
which later in the flow period appeared to be approaching but not reaching stabilisation.
The well produced back only a fraction of the aqueous fluids lost or injected into the well. This may
suggest that the drilled-in and unknown productive interval is not well connected or is blocked off from
any extensive vertically conductive fault/fracture system present in the basement.
8.6
Recoverable Volumes
For the reasons discussed in Section 8.5.1, RPS calculated Resource estimates for both a volatile oil
case and a gas condensate case representing the likely end-members of the possible fluid types that
may exist in the reservoir. Further analysis of the fluid type is required to remove this ambiguity. All
recovery factors for recoverable volumes for an oil case and for a gas condensate case were assumed
based on the RPS data base. All calculated recoverable volumes were derived probabilistically.
8.6.1 Volatile Oil
Different recovery factors are also assumed for basement and limestone reservoirs due to the
perceived differences in reservoir quality of the two formations, as shown in Table 8.13. Note that the
volumes in Table 8.13 are technically recoverable volumes presented before any economic limit test.
The associated gas is presented in Table 8.14.
ECV2055
49
RPS Energy
The associate gas, due to unstablised flow, could not be accurately determined, especially in the case
of volatile oil which varies with time when production is below the bubble point pressure. However it
was considered that range of 4000 to 5000 scf/stb was reasonable with respect to the recovery factors
for this type of oil.
STOIIP (MMstb)
(MMstb)
Recovery Factors (%)
Resource
Low
Best
high
Low
Best
high
1C
2C
3C
Conventional (Basement)
205
371
571
20
30
40
57
109
180
Conventional (Limestone)
14
38
81
30
40
23
219
409
652
n/a
n/a
n/a
59
117
203
35
Conventional (Total)
Table 8.13 Whirlwind Oil Contingent Resources (Oil Case)

(Bscf))
GOR (scf/stb)
Resource
Low
Best
High
Low
Best
High
4000
4500
5000
228
490
900
4000
4500
5000
38
117
n/a
n/a
n/a
236
528
1017
36
Table 8.14 Whirlwind Associated Gas Contingent Resources (Oil Case)

As mentioned before the Unconventional resources in Whirlwind are not confirmed by a well and
therefore recoverable Unconventional volumes in Whirlwind are deemed to be Prospective Resources.
The Prospective Resources calculated are summarised in Table 8.15 with Associated Gas values in
Table 8.16.
STOIIP (MMstb)
Resource
Prospective
Resources (MMstb)
Low
Best
High
Low
Best
High
Low
Best
High
Unconventional (Basement)
48
216
547
15
20
35
11
50
137
Unconventional (Limestone)
28
17
30
0.2
1.4
49
225
575
n/a
n/a
n/a
11
51
143
37
Unconventional (Total)
Table 8.15 Whirlwind Oil Prospective Resources (Oil Case), with a GPoS of 50% for both
Basement and Limestone
35
36
As footnote 36
37
As footnote 36.
ECV2055
50
RPS Energy
GOR (scf/stb)
Prospective Resource
(Bscf))
Resource
Low
Best
High
Low
Best
High
4000
4500
5000
44
225
685
4000
4500
5000
0.8
6.3
30
n/a
n/a
n/a
45
231
715
38
Table 8.16 Whirlwind Associated Gas Prospective Resources (Oil Case), with a GPoS of 50%
for both Basement and Limestone
8.6.2 Gas Condensate
Different recovery factors are also assumed for basement and limestone reservoirs due to the
perceived differences in reservoir quality of the two formations, as shown in Table 8.17 and Table
8.18. Note that the volumes in these tables are technically recoverable volumes presented before any
economic limit test.
WGIIP (Bscf)
Contingent
Resources (Bscf)
Resource
Low
Best
high
Low
Best
high
1C
2C
3C
669
1188
1809
60
70
80
424
758
1171
43
122
258
20
50
80
13
50
132
712
1310
2067
n/a
n/a
n/a
437
808
1303
39
Table 8.17 Whirlwind Gas Contingent Resources (Gas Condensate Case)
Condensate Yield (bbl/MMscf)

Resource
Contingent Resources (MMstb)
Low
Best
High
1C
2C
3C
30
55
80
18
41
76
30
55
80
0.7
n/a
n/a
n/a
18
44
84
40
Table 8.18 Whirlwind Condensate Contingent Resources (Gas Condensate Case)

As mentioned before, the Unconventional resources in Whirlwind are not confirmed by a well and
therefore recoverable Unconventional volumes in Whirlwind are deemed to be Prospective Resources.
The incremental Prospective Resources calculated are summarised in Table 8.19 and Table 8.20.
38
39
As footnote 38
40
As footnote 38
ECV2055
51
RPS Energy
Prospective
Recovery Factors
(%)
WGIIP (Bscf)
Resources (Bscf)
Resource
Low
Best
High
Low
Best
High
Low
Best
High
153
702
1739
40
60
70
76
350
897
30
92
10
40
70
1.2
10
38
158
732
1831
n/a
n/a
n/a
77
360
935
41
Table 8.19 Whirlwind Gas Prospective Resources (Gas Condensate Case), with a GPoS of
50% for both Basement and Limestone
Condensate Yield
(bbl/MMscf)
Resource
Low
Best
(MMstb)
high
Low
Best
High
30
80
19
56
30
80
0.06
0.53
n/a
20
59
42
n/a
n/a
Table 8.20 Whirlwind Condensate Prospective Resources (Gas Condensate Case)
8.7
Whirlwind Risk Assessment
Following the testing of well 205/21a-5, Whirlwind can now be classified as a discovery and, as such,
is assigned a significant quantity of Contingent Resources (Development Unclarified). The chance of
development is contingent on resolving the following uncertainties:
Hydrocarbon type
Interconnectivity of fracture network (pending interference testing)
OWC depth
Demonstration of commercial flow rates from a well test
Demonstration that drilling of the proposed horizontal wells is possible.
Water production potential and subsequent water handling requirements.
Full field development plan (number of wells required, drill centre locations).
The Lancaster development which is planned to be the host facility for Whirlwind
hydrocarbons
The Whirlwind discovery requires further appraisal to resolve the uncertainties.

In addition, the nature of the reservoir and trap means that an, as yet, undiscovered volume of
potential Resources are prognosed to exist below the current discovered volumes. Therefore,
Whirlwind is also assigned a volume of Prospective Resources, which has an associated GPoS
(chance of discovery) of 25%.
41
42
As footnote 41
ECV2055
52
RPS Energy
9. LINCOLN PROSPECT
9.1
Summary
The Lincoln prospect is located about 9km SW of Lancaster on the Rona Ridge, (see Figure 3.1). In
common with Lancaster the proposed reservoir in Lincoln is fractured basement. The mapped
reservoir is about 500m deeper than Lancaster. For the evaluation of Lincoln it was assumed that
Lancaster is a direct analogue.
9.2
The seismic interpretation and mapping rationale are identical to Lancaster as described in Section
7.2
9.3
Geological Model
As mentioned above, the geological model was as described for Lancaster with same fault zone and
pseudo-matrix parameters.
Lincoln is undiscovered and a geological risk factor of 49% has been assigned to the Conventional
closure. This was based on two main risk elements: the likelihood of the effectiveness of the trap
estimated at 64% and seal effectiveness at 80% as this is a fractured environment where faults may
not be fully sealing. Charge was set at 95% with proven source rock in the area with reservoir
presence set at 100% based on our seismic interpretation confirming very similar Basement response
to that of Lancaster.
For the Unconventional interval the risk on the trap effectiveness was increased to 36% because of
the interval is below mapped spill requiring intra reservoir trapping similar to what is postulated in
Lancaster. This gives a GPoS of 27%.
9.4
Lincoln Volumetrics
9.4.1
Contacts
RPS adopted a similar approach to contact ranges as Hurricane. Again both Conventional and
Unconventional sections were identified. For a minimum closure we identified the deepest contour
that did not require faults to close. On the RPS mapping this was identified at 1780m TVDSS, deeper
than identified on the Hurricane mapping. For the maximum case, we concur with Hurricane that the
1820m TVDSS contour should be used. For the Unconventional section, Hurricane proposed the
overlying mapped Rona Sand spill at 2135m TVDSS. The well to the south of the Lincoln prospect,
205/26-1, had oil bleeding from the core at 2078m TVDSS supporting the possibility of hydrocarbons
to the deeper mapped spill. Figure 9.1 illustrates the contacts on the Basement depth structure map.
In Lincoln, the source-rock/reservoir juxtaposition is considered to be less favourable below the
Conventional closure than in Lancaster because it does not have a 'deep flank' adjoining the kitchen
area. As a result the potential deeper contact used in Lancaster for the Undiscovered Unconventional
Lancaster volumes is not considered valid for Lincoln.
ECV2055
53
RPS Energy
1820m TVDSS
Conventional
Closure with faults
1780m TVDSS
Conventional
Closure no faults
2135m TVDSS
Unconventional
Closure
Figure 9.1 Lincoln Prospect Basement Depth Structure with closure areas
9.4.2
STOIIP Inputs and Results
Table 9.1below details the input parameters used to determine the range of conventional STOIIP.
Low
Contact Range (m)
Best
High
1780
1820
Proportion PM %
64
Proportion FZ %
36
Porosity PM (%)
Porosity FZ (%)
10
Sw PM (%)
10
20
Sw FZ (%)
10
Bo (rb/stb)
1.2
1.2
1.2
Table 9.1 Lincoln Conventional Basement Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case
shown in Table 9.2.
Basement
Low
Best
High
Mean
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
123
220
341
227
GPoS
Risked Mean
MMstb
49%
111
Table 9.2 RPS Estimated Conventional Basement Undiscovered On Block STOIIP in Lincoln
(100% Basis)
The input parameters and results for the Unconventional undiscovered STOIIP are detailed in Table
9.3 and Table 9.4 below.
ECV2055
54
RPS Energy
Low
Best
High
1821
2135
Proportion PM %
64
Proportion FZ %
36
Porosity PM (%)
0.5
Porosity FZ (%)
Sw PM (%)
30
50
70
Sw FZ (%)
10
Bo (rb/stb)
1.2
1.2
1.2
Table 9.3 Lincoln Unconventional Basement Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case
Low
Best
High
Mean
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
194
466
925
523
Basement
GPoS
Risked Mean
MMstb
27%
141
Table 9.4 RPS Estimated Unconventional Basement Undiscovered On Block STOIIP in

Lincoln (100% Basis)
9.5
As discussed above, the Lincoln prospect is located about 9 km SW of Lancaster on the Rona Ridge
and is about 9km NE of Solan. In common with Lancaster, the target reservoir in Lincoln is fractured
basement but about 500m deeper than Lancaster.
9.5.1
PVT/Fluids Data
43
A 2008 study was carried out on the Rona Sandstone and Basement of well 205/26-1 (a discovery
well near to the Lincoln prospect) to identify the source rock of the stains by correlation with oils of
known origin and/or Kimmeridge Clay Formation (KCF) samples from the East Solan Basin and from
the main Faroe-Shetland Basin.
This study involved the analysis of 11 new samples, including oil stains from well 205/26-1 and the
Solan and Strathmore discovery wells, and Kimmeridge Clay source rocks from wells in the study
area. In addition, relevant geochemical data from previous IGI studies conducted for Hurricane
Energy were also included in the study. The study concluded that the oil appears to be a mixture of
biodegraded and undegraded oil and the oil correlates closely with a KCF source rock from the same
well and identifies those sourced from Back Basin KCF facies as:
Solan/Strathmore (East Solan Basin)
205/26-1 (East Solan Basin)
204/29A-2 (West Solan Basin)
205/20-2 (West Shetland Basin)
In addition, oil stains in well 205/21-1a show an intermediate (possibly mixed) composition between
Faeroe-Shetland and Back Basin sourced oil. While the Faeroe-Shetland Basin is likely to have been
the main source. Well 205/21-1a might have received some additional charge from the East Solan
Basin or from a source rock of BackBasin type KCF located in an anoxic pocket on the northern side
of the Rona Ridge, or from the main KCF source kitchen immediately to the north of the Rona Ridge.
Based on the above information and Lincoln field location, which is midway between Solan and
Lancaster, RPS concluded that the Lincoln field may have received equal charge from Faeroeo
o
Shetland and from Back Basin source rocks which would result in 30 -40 API oil in Lincoln. This is
o
o
o
due to the fact that oil in Solan/Strathmore with KCF source rock is heavier (23 -27 API) than oil (36
o
-38 API) in Lancaster, with the major source of Faeroe-Shetland and minor source of Back Basin.
43
Evaluation of hydrocarbon source and charging in well 205/26A-1, west of Shetlands, UK, by Integrated Geochemical
Interpretation Ltd. Oct 2008
ECV2055
55
RPS Energy
9.5.2
No core or SCAL data were available for Lincoln as no wells have yet been drilled on the prospect. As
production profiles have been generated based on assumed declines from analogue fields, SCAL data
is not necessary.
9.5.3
Production Performance Analysis
As discussed above, the oil in Lincoln may be heavier than in Lancaster. Somewhat counterintuitively, based on the analogues for Type-I fractured reservoirs, ultimate recovery factors for
medium-gravity to light-gravity oils decrease with increasing API gravity and increase with increasing
viscosity. However, there is insufficient information to enable RPS to confidently confirm the existence
of the heavier oil in the Lincoln prospect. RPS therefore assumes the same recovery factor as
Lancaster for Lincoln for the Low and the Best cases but allows a slightly higher recovery factor for the
High case to account for this possibility (Table 9.5).
9.5.4
Recoverable Volumes
As with Whirlwind, Hurricane consider that any development of Lincoln prospect would be undertaken
in a similar manner to that proposed for Lancaster and produced via subsea tieback to the Lancaster
surface facilities. As Lincoln is a prospect and not a discovery, RPS classify both the Conventional
and Unconventional volumes as Prospective Resources.
RPS has considered a similar development process to that used on Lancaster, with efforts made to
prove up the Unconventional oil section of Lincoln for development of Conventional and
Unconventional volumes. As a result, the same assumptions for uptime availability and completion
technology used on Lancaster are also used for Lincoln.
As no well count was provided for a potential Lincoln development, the Lancaster well spacing was
calculated to be approximately 400 acres/well and this was used to calculate the expected well count
for the Lincoln structure, resulting in a total of six producing wells, five wells are pre-drilled and a sixth
producing well is drilled after production startup.
RPS assumed the same initial production rate as used in section 7.5.4. Total calculated Prospective
Resources for this case are summarised in Table 9.5.
The production forecasts for low best and high case Prospective Resources are shown in Table 9.5.
Resource
STOIIP (MMstb)
Recovery Factor (%)
Prospective Resource
(MMstb)
Low
Best
High
Low
Best
High
Low
Best
High
Conventional
123
220
341
20
30
48
25
66
164
Unconventional
194
466
925
10
18
19
19
84
175
317
686
1266
14
22
27
44
150
339
44
Total
Table 9.5 Lincoln Prospective Resources with 80% up time, with a GPoS of 27%
44
Arithmetic total
ECV2055
56
RPS Energy
45,000
400
2C Oil Rate
3C Oil Rate
1C Oil Rate
2C Cumulative Oil Production
35,000
350
300
30,000
Oil Rate (stb/d)
250
25,000
200
20,000
150
15,000
Cumulative Production (MMstb)
40,000
100
10,000
50
5,000
0
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Years
Figure 9.2 Production Forecast for Lincoln (Conventional + Unconventional) with 80% uptime
As with Lancaster, if the efforts made to prove up the Unconventional oil section of Lincoln by
Hurricane is unsuccessful, the Conventional Only case should be considered. In this scenario Lincoln
Conventional structural closure only would be developed with five 2,000m horizontal wells, instead of
six wells, drilled at the top of the Conventional basement section as producers. RPS assumed the
same initial production rate as used in the base case, but a higher decline rate as a much smaller
volume of oil would be available for each well in this case.
Lincoln calculated Conventional Only EUR can be seen in Table 9.6. Figure 9.3 shows the production
forecast for this Conventional Only case.
STOIIP (MMstb)
(MMstb)
Resource
Low
Best
High
Low
Best
High
Low
Best
High
Conventional Only
123
220
341
20
30
48
25
66
164
Table 9.6 Lincoln Conventional Only Prospective Resources with 80% up time, with a GPoS
of 27%
ECV2055
57
RPS Energy
40,000
180
160
35,000
2C Oil Rate
1C Oil Rate
Oil Rate (stb/d)
120
25,000

100
20,000
80
15,000
60
Cumulative Production (MMstb)
140
3C Oil Rate
30,000
10,000
40
5,000
20
0
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Years
Figure 9.3 Production Forecast for Lincoln for Conventional Only case with 80% uptime
ECV2055
58
RPS Energy
10. TEMPEST DISCOVERY AND TYPHOON PROSPECT

10.1 Summary
The Tempest/Typhoon structure lies in blocks 204/28, 204/27, 204/22a and 204/23a and are all
operated by Hurricane, (see Figure 3.1). Tempest and Typhoon are respectively:
Tempest Upper Jurassic Rona Sandstone
Typhoon Fractured Pre-Cambrian Basement

th
On February 18 2013 Hurricane applied to DECC for an extension to the P.1485 licence. On
th
nd
February 20 2013, DECC granted a limited extension of 6 months to the 2 Term of the Licence to
th
30 September 2013 in order to give Hurricane time to put a rig contract in place to drill the
th
st
commitment exploration well. On 5 August 2013 DECC granted a further 3 month extension to 31
December 2013 to allow for a contract to be placed.
nd
st
Additionally, at the end of the 2 Term, as at 31 March 2013, DECC requested that Hurricane
relinquish acreage beyond the Typhoon and Tempest prospects. A letter detailing the surrender of
th
this acreage was issued to Hurricane on 11 March 2013. Figure 3.2 shows the area of the P.1485
licence that was retained by Hurricane and the areas that were relinquished. .
The Upper Jurassic Rona sandstone and the immediately underlying fractured Precambrian basement
targets lie within the same structural closure on the footwall of the Judd Fault (Figure 10.1). This
structure was drilled by well 204/28-1 in 1981 by BP. Beneath 1,800 m of Tertiary, the well
encountered 78 m of Upper Jurassic Lower Cretaceous lying directly on fractured Precambrian
basement. Oil shows were recorded throughout the 49m thick Rona Sandstone section and into
basement, which was encountered at 1940 m MD (-1915 m TVDSS). Separate DSTs were run across
these two intervals. DST 1 in basement flowed at an average rate of 120 bbl of fluid with a trace of
o
heavy oil (13 API) recovered. DST 2a was completed across the Rona Sandstone section and the
flow rate decreased from an average of 150 bbl fluid per day to 60 bbl of fluid per day with a trace of
oil. The Rona sand was interpreted to have good porosity and permeability, and a column of heavy,
viscous oil. No oil flowed to surface in either test but heavy oil samples were recovered during reverse
circulation. The oil is believed to have been sourced from mature Upper Jurassic shales within the
Judd-Basin and is assumed to have migrated through fractured basement into Tempest/Typhoon on
the Judd Terrace.
10.2 Geophysical Interpretation and Mapping

The prospect (both Typhoon and Tempest) is defined by 3D seismic coverage and is a 4-way dip
closure. The extent of the prospect is constrained by down-dip well 204/27-1, where the water-wet top
Rona Sandstone lies at -2,027 m TVDSS. The structural crest of the prospect lies in block 204/23 and
is at -1,400 m TVDSS at top Rona Sandstone giving a maximum potential structural closure relief of
>600 m. RPS has reviewed the seismic interpretation, mapping and depth conversion. As noted in
Section 7.2, the Basement seismic pick is most clearly imaged where there is no hard immediate
overburden such as Rona Sandstone or Valhall limestone. Where the Rona Sandstone and younger
rocks thicken downflank towards the south east (between 204/28-1 and 204/28-2) and in the north
towards 204/22-1, there is much more uncertainty in the seismic interpretation of the Basement as it
has very little seismic expression.
In the depth conversion, some differences in approach were noted between RPS and Hurricane.
Details of the depth conversion methodology are found in the Lancaster section above. Within closure
the GRV calculated for the basement by RPS are slightly higher with that of Hurricane. With respect
to the Rona Sandstone, the unit is located on the west flank of the Basement structure. The sand
pinches out onto the crest of the Typhoon structure. The thickness of the Rona was based on the
interval between top Rona depth structure and the Basement surface.
As with the Lancaster Prospect, the effectiveness of basement reservoir in the Typhoon Prospect is
dependent on faulting and associated fracture zones. RPS assessed the faulting at Typhoon and
generally accepted the interpretation from the available seismic data. The faulting also affects the
Rona Sandstone and may enhance reservoir properties and pore volume but this potential is not
quantified by Golder Associates in its fracture modelling, which is focused entirely on basement
prospectivity of Typhoon.
ECV2055
59
RPS Energy
10.3 Geological Model

For the evaluation of the Conventional Basement the Lancaster approach was adopted since
seismically no difference in terms of fault density could be seen. For the evaluation of the
Unconventional (Flank) Basement of Typhoon, the same rationale as used for Lancaster is applied.
Following a review of the fracturing in the basement cores in wells 204/22-1 it is RPSs view that the
fracturing may not be as intense as seen in Lancaster. To reflect the proportion of the GRV ascribed
to fault zones was decreased and the pseudo-matrix proportion increased. Porosity ranges for the
fault zones and pseudo-matrix were also reduced from the ranges applied to Lancaster allow for
potential less intense fracturing.
A geochemical evaluation by Hurricanes contractors of the heavy oil stains in Rona Sandstone from
204/28-1 indicated biodegradation had taken place but that some n-alkanes were present which
signified a more recent second charge of oil that was not biodegraded. Further study showed that the
oils in down-flank wells 204/23-1 and 204/22-1 (Figure 10.1) are not biodegraded because these wells
were located deeper in the basin, closer to the Upper Jurassic source rock, and where higher
temperatures prevented biodegradation. Oil migration is invoked from the basin, through fractured
basement up into the joint prospect. It is possible that there is a deeper layer of lighter, nonbiodegraded oil beneath the heavy oil, but the non flow of oil from the DSTs suggests that heavy oil
prevails in the tested zones.
Hurricane propose that the light oil identified in flank well 204/22-1 represents a possible hydrocarbon
system similar to that seen in the Sunah Field in Yemen (see Figure 10.2) with the Hurricane model for
Typhoon shown in Figure 10.1
204/22-1
Rona Sandstone reservoir
Conventional Basement
Unconventional Flank Basement
After Hurricane
Figure 10.1 Hurricanes Typhoon Flank model
ECV2055
60
RPS Energy
01/02/08
Figure 10.2 The Sunah Field, Yemen as a possible analogue for Typhoon prospect
In the Sunah Field, oil is trapped in a fracture system of a fault scarp and has been developed as part
of the field. In the Typhoon flank the possibility exists that a similar system may be present. Down dip
204/23-1 encountered condensate in a Basement closure demonstrating that light oil can be
generated. The key flank well 204/22-1 was not tested nor any oil samples recovered. The evidence
for oil is cuttings shows and oil in a thin fractured section in a core of 2cm thick. While the evidence
from the well is favourable it is the RPS view that it cannot be described as significant, as required by
PRMS, to allow the well to be designated as a discovery, particularly in such an unconventional
setting. For this reason RPS views the potential resources of the Flank play to be Prospective.
The Rona Sand of Tempest is of Upper Jurassic age. A sedimentological study of core from well
204/28-1 was undertaken by Leppard Sedimentology. They identified three depositional sand facies,
Alluvial fan (Unit1), Marine transgressive (Unit 2) and offshore (Unit 3). For input to a probabilistic
analysis RPS has treated the Rona sand as one unit with average reservoir properties derived from
the log analysis wells 204/27a-1 and 204/28a-1 and the Senergy Petrel model.
10.4 Volumetrics
The structural trap for both the Rona Sandstone and the Conventional Basement horizons has the
same mapped spill point and uncertainties. RPS evaluation of the structure and depth conversion
confirms that the trap is robust. The ultimate caprock is the shale at the top of the Rona Sandstone
and its effectiveness affects both prospects equally.
10.4.1 Contacts
The mapped spill of 1960m TVDSS is used as the maximum closure in Tempest and the only closure
in the Conventional Basement of Typhoon. An ODT of 1940 m, base of the Rona in well 204/28-1,
was used as a minimum case in Tempest. Figure 10.3 shows the Rona sand depth structure map with
the 1960 m TVDSS closure indicated.
ECV2055
61
RPS Energy
1960m TVDSS Closure
Figure 10.3 Tempest Rona Sandstone Depth Structure map with mapped closure indicated
For the Typhoon Unconventional Flank prospect the evaluation was by necessity speculative. The
rationale for the possible volumes is to give the range of possibilities. For the minimum case a slab
50m thick was assumed from 1960m TVDSS to the TD in well 204/22-1 at 2700 m TVDSS. The
maximum case was based on a wedge with a maximum thickness of 1000 m, Figure 10.4, from
1960 m TVDSS to 3850 m TVDSS which is the depth of condensate in well in well 204/23-1. Figure
10.5 shows the Typhoon Basement depth structure map with the Conventional and Flank areas.
Being undiscovered a GPoS of 16% was assigned. This includes a 35% risk on the effectiveness of
the highly unconventional trap and a 50% risk on reservoir. Seal and charge were risked at 100% and
95% respectively reflecting evidence of shows in the 204/22-1 well.
ECV2055
62
RPS Energy
204/22-1
Conventional
1960m TVDSS Mapped Spill
50m thick Slab

Wedge max 1000m thickness
2700m TVDSS
TD 204/22-1
204/23-1
Unconventional
Undiscovered
3850m TVDSS condensate in well 204/23-1
After Hurricane
Figure 10.4 Schematic showing rationale for Typhoon Flank volumes
Flank Prospect
204/23-1
204/22-1
204/27a-1
204/28-1
at 1960m TVDSS
Figure 10.5 Typhoon Basement Depth Structure map

10.4.2 STOIIP Inputs and Results
Table 10.1 to Table 10.5 give the input parameters and results for the Tempest and Typhoon in place
volumes.
ECV2055
63
RPS Energy
Low
Contact Range (m)
Best
High
1940
1960
N:G (%)
55
65
75
Pososity (%)
21
26
31
Sw (%)
Bo (rb/stb)
25
35
45
1.03
1.05
1.07
Table 10.1 Tempest Rona Sandstone Conventional Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case
Rona Sandstone
Low
Best
High
Mean
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
320
466
687
483
Table 10.2 RPS Estimated STOIIP in Tempest (100% Basis)

Low
Best
Contact Range (m)
High
1960
Proportion PM %
64
Proportion FZ %
36
Porosity PM (%)
Porosity FZ (%)
10
Sw PM (%)
10
20
Sw FZ (%)
10
Bo (rb/stb)
1.2
1.2
1.2
Table 10.3 Typhoon Conventional Basement Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case
Basement
Low
Best
High
Mean
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
475
841
1274
862
Table 10.4 RPS Estimated Conventional Basement STOIIP in Typhoon (100% Basis)
Low
Contact Range (m)
Best
2700
High
3850
Proportion PM %
70
Proportion FZ %
30
Porosity PM (%)
0.1
0.5
Porosity FZ (%)
Sw PM (%)
30
50
70
Sw FZ (%)
10
Bo (rb/stb)
1.2
1.2
1.2
Table 10.5 Typhoon Unconventional Basement Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case
shown in Table 10.6.
Total
Low
Best
High
Mean
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
79
497
3014
1278
GPoS
Risked Mean
MMstb
16%
205
Table 10.6 RPS Estimated Unconventional Basement Undiscovered STOIIP in Typhoon (100%
Basis)
ECV2055
64
RPS Energy
10.5 Reservoir Engineering

In general for the Typhoon/Tempest discovery, engineering data is scarce and of poor quality.
While there was a number of oil samples taken during the well tests performed on the 204/28-1 well,
no analysis results are available. Core data, particularly special core analysis (SCAL) is sparse and
the well tests conducted were not long enough (particularly DST1) to give decent results for analysis.
As a result, there is likely to be a large margin of error on any assessment made of reservoir
performance and substantial work would be required to properly appraise the discovery before any
development could be contemplated.
10.5.1 PVT/Fluids Data
A total of 13 fluid samples were taken from the 204/28-1 well, summarised in Table 10.7:
Test
Sample Type
Sampling Point
Temp/Pres (C/psia)
Sample #
Volume
Container #
DST1
PVT
PCT Sample Chamber
49/2760
PCT1
600cc
80-291-19
DST1
PVT
PCT Sample Chamber
49/2760
PCT2
600cc
80-201-83
DST1
Surface
Choke Manifold
Ambient/Atm.
1 gal.
N/A
DST1
Surface
Choke Manifold
Ambient/Atm.
1 gal.
N/A
DST1
Surface
Stock Tank
Ambient/Atm.
1 gal.
N/A
45
DST2
PVT
Bottom Hole Sample
43/4420
9024-11
DST2
PVT
PCT Sample Chamber
43/2660
PCT1
9214-307
DST2
PVT
PCT Sample Chamber
43/2660
PCT2
13266-43
DST2
Surface
Choke Manifold
Ambient/Atm.
1 gal.
DST2
Surface
Choke Manifold
Ambient/Atm.
1 gal.
DST2
Surface
Choke Manifold
Ambient/Atm.
1 gal.
DST2
Surface
Choke Manifold
Ambient/Atm.
N/A
45 gal,
RFT
PVT
6300 ft BRT
(1920.5 m BRT)
37/2805
RFT1
4 litres
Various
Table 10.7 Typhoon/Tempest PVT Samples

The End of Well Report (EOWR) comments that the RFT samples were composed primarily of mud
filtrate, with insufficient oil present to analyse, and that all other samples were dispatched to Sunbury
for analysis. However, none of the results are available, if the tests were ever done.
The EOWR also states that for DST1, oil samples recovered during reverse circulating were
extremely viscous, despite diesel contamination. The specific gravity of these samples was measured
at values of up to 0.91 (24 API).
Similarly for DST2A, the EOWR comments Relatively uncontaminated oil samples were recovered
during reverse circulation. The specific gravity of these samples was measured at 0.98 (13 API).
No surface gas rates were calculated, so GOR is also unknown.
46
Senergy examined the Typhoon/Tempest reservoir in 2010 and their report notes that fluid samples
taken were reported as 10.5 10.7 API, though it is not clear where this information comes from. As
part of the evaluation work done by Senergy, they estimated oil viscosity at 1000 cp, based on
viscosity correlations for 10.5 to 13 API oil at 120F and a GOR of 25 scf/stb is also estimated to
generate black oil tables.
45
Taken while bullheading the well, hence the high pressure observed.
46
Tempest-Typhoon Heavy Oil Discovery Evaluation, Meradi et al., Senergy April 2010
ECV2055
65
RPS Energy
10.5.2 Rock Properties/SCAL

Both the Rona sandstone and basement were cored, and oil shows were reported throughout.
However, no form of special core analysis was conducted in either the Rona sandstone or basement
sections. Therefore, no relative permeability or capillary pressure data are available. As a result,
Senergy chose to use relative permeability curves from the Captain field for the Rona sandstone and
straight line relative permeabilities in the basement.
While these assumptions are reasonable, given the lack of available data, Captain is not a particularly
good analogue (as noted by Senergy) and the lack of real relative permeability data has a large impact
on the potential oil recovery for the field, particularly as much of the oil is produced under high water
cut within the Senergy model.
10.5.3 Well Tests
10.5.4 Production Performance Analysis
Three drill stem tests (DST) were conducted by BP in the 204/28-1 well between 8th 18th October
1981. Senergy have analysed all 3 DSTs for Hurricane as part of their 2010 assessment of the
Tempest/Typhoon discovery. Only scanned hard copy data is available for all 3 tests and data quality
is questionable, particularly rate data which has been back calculated from pressure response for
DST1 & DST2, and fluid viscosity which is estimated at 1,000 cp but has not been directly measured
anywhere.
DST1 tested the fracture system in the basement in open hole below the 9 5/8 casing shoe at 1,949
mBRT to TD at 1,972mBRT. A partial diesel cushion was used to provide an initial drawdown,
estimated at 1,840 psia. The test comprised an initial flow period of 28 minutes, and a 67 minute shutin, followed by a main flow period of 368 minutes and a final shut-in of 104 minutes, resulting in a total
test programme time of approximately 9 hours, with 6 hours 36 minutes flowing time.
During the test, the diesel cushion did not reach the surface. Total flow was estimated at 42 barrels by
topping up the test string with water after testing, calculating an average flow rate for the test of 153
stb/d and a very rough estimate of 120 stb/d for the last flow period. Oil samples were recovered to
surface via reverse circulation after the test and are described as being very viscous, even with
extensive diesel contamination.
Although Senergy have analysed DST1 using the available data, DST1 is very short in duration and,
based on the analysis performed by Senergy, does not achieve stable radial flow at any point during
the test, making estimates of formation permeability questionable.
DST2 tested the Rona Sandstone interval from 1,899 1,939 mBRT via perforations. Similarly to
DST1, a diesel cushion was used to create an initial drawdown, estimated at 1,000 psia. An initial flow
period of 7 minutes was followed by an initial shut-in of 126 minutes. This was followed by a main flow
period of 283 minutes and a final shut-in period of 316 minutes, resulting in a total test programme
time of approximately 12 hours, with 4 hours 50 minutes flowing time. During the test, the diesel
cushion did not reach the surface. Total flow was estimated at 19 barrels by topping up the test string
with diesel after testing, calculating an average flow rate of 94 stb/d. Due to the poor flow rate, tool
plugging was suspected. As a result of this, 3 attempts were made to clear the string by bullheading
small volumes (2 bbl increments) of water down the test string. However, this resulted in no
improvement of flow rate and on retrieving the string, no signs of plugging were found.
Samples obtained by reverse circulating prior to retrieving the string were found to be heavily
contaminated by water used for bullheading. As a result of these operations, it was decided to re-test
the interval as DST2A.
Prior to DST2A, the interval was re-perforated under brine in case the perforations were plugged. A
diesel cushion was run to surface in the test string to allow more accurate rate measurement during
the test, resulting in an estimated initial drawdown of 400 psia.
Initial flow was restricted to simply opening the downhole valve and observing the pressure build-up
for 60 minutes. This was followed by a main flow period of 352 minutes and a final shut-in period of
378 minutes, resulting in a total test programme time of approximately 13 hours.
Total flow recorded at surface during the main flow period was 16 barrels, yielding an average flow
rate of 65 stb/d. Initial flow rate was estimated at 150 stb/d, subsiding to a stable rate of 61 stb/d.
Relatively uncontaminated samples of heavy oil were recovered post test via reverse circulation.
These samples had a measured specific gravity (S.G.) of 0.98 (13 API).
ECV2055
66
RPS Energy
Data quality for DST2/2A (taken in the Rona sandstone) is better than for DST1, and DST2 in
particular appears to have achieved stabilised flow during the main build-up period, with some late
time/boundary effects evident. Based on Senergys interpretation, permeability is estimated to be
between 7,000 9,000 mD, depending on the flow model chosen, with skin ranging from 10 15.
This would appear to correspond reasonably well to the core estimates for the Rona sandstone.
However, as noted above, these estimates are still subject to uncertainty due to the assumptions used
for the input data, though Senergy have recognised these issues and commented on them extensively
in their report.
In order to analyse potential production of the Tempest/Typhoon discovery, RPS has reviewed the
simulation work conducted by Senergy in 2010.
Within the Rona sandstone, Senergy have used different porosity-permeability relationships for each
47
facies identified within the unit, based on work conducted by Leppard from sedimentological studies
of the 204/27a-1 and 204/28-1 wells. The permeabilities were subsequently increased in the model to
match the well test results from 204/28-1 DST2/2A.
For the basement section, Senergy have assumed that 350m of basement below the Rona is
48
productive, utilising porosity and water saturation data from Golder Associates work on Lancaster .
For permeability, Senergy note that Hurricane provided their own assumptions on permeability in the
basement. The values are lower than the very high values suggested by the 204/28-1 DST1 well test.
The model was populated initially with the Hurricane values.
However, Senergy go on to comment that:
There is not adequate data from a single well test to define the distribution of permeability within the
basement. Golder Associates note that pseudo matrix may locally contain reservoir properties as
good as the inner fault zone. It is assumed that the very high permeability interpreted from DST 1 is a
manifestation of this. Hence 200 D has been used for the inner fault zone with lower values for the
outer fault zone and pseudo-matrix. Other assumptions are of course possible and could have been
used for alternative sensitivity cases.
As discussed previously, given the short time period of the DST1 test, stable radial flow is not
achieved, making any interpretation of permeability values questionable, particularly given that the
rates used for the analysis are not directly measured but are roughly estimated based on fluid levels
and pressures recorded during testing.
Therefore, RPS has difficulty believing that the values suggested by Senergy based on the
interpretation of DST1 are reliable. As a result, RPS has chosen to use the Hurricane suggested
values for basement permeability (Table 10.8). Well test analysis of DST2/2A is considered more
reliable due to the extended buildup times seen during these tests which result in radial flow being
observed on the analysis plots.
Basement Zone
Permeability (Hurricane) mD
Permeability (Senergy WTA based) mD
Inner fault zone
1,000
200,000
Outer fault zone
100
100,000
Pseudo-matrix
25
50,000
Table 10.8 Senergy Typhoon Permeability Values

Simulation work conducted by Senergy concentrates on development of the Rona sandstones. This is
based primarily on the lack of understanding of the basement fracture propensity and density, which
makes estimates of the basement productivity difficult. However, various sensitivities examining
basement permeability and fracture compressibility have been made which go some way to
addressing these issues.
47
Tempest Sedimentological Model, Leppard Sedimentology, May 2009
48
3D Volumetric Sensitivity Analysis of Hurricane Explorations Lancaster Prospect, West of Shetland (Blocks 205/21A, 22A,
26B), Golder Associates, February 2009.
ECV2055
67
RPS Energy
Based on the simulation work conducted by Senergy, wells drilled in the high permeability, coarse
grained marine transgressional Rona sands (Unit 2 Coarse) can deliver reasonable flow rates,
despite the oil viscosity, while wells predominantly drilled in the finer grained sands (Unit 2 Fine) do
not flow at economic rates. Therefore successful mapping or correlation of the coarser sands would
appear to be paramount in determining if the field can be successfully developed.
10.5.6 Recoverable Volumes
RPS considers the Conventional Rona sandstone (Tempest) and basement (Typhoon) volumes to be
classified as Contingent Resources (Development on Hold), while the flank prospect volumes are
considered to be Prospective Resources.
RPS has made minor adjustments to the Senergy model, including adjusting STOIIP to match RPS
probabilistic volumes using pore volume multipliers, and re-run selected sensitivities to scope the
range of recovery factors. The results of these sensitivities are broadly in line with those documented
by Senergy. As a result, RPS has estimated recoverable volumes as shown in Table 10.9:
STOIIP (MMstb)
(MMstb)
Resource
Low
Best
High
Low
Best
High
1C
2C
3C
Rona Sst (Tempest)
320
466
687
1%
2%
5%
34
475
841
1274
1%
2%
5%
17
64
795
1307
1961
1%
2%
5%
26
98
Basement (Typhoon)
Conventional
49
Total (Sum)
Table 10.9 Typhoon/Tempest Contingent Resources (Conventional Only)

The Unconventional flank prospect does not form part of Senergy's model, and as a result it is not
possible to examine this area in detail. Given the prospective nature of this area of the field, even less
data is available for this region than is present for the main field area. As a result, any estimate of
recovery factors is highly speculative. Based on existing observations and comparison with the
Lancaster area, given that the reservoir and fluid properties are expected to be similar to those
observed in Lancaster, the same recovery factors are used for the flank area prospect, as shown in
Table 10.10:
STOIIP (MMstb)
Resource
Typhoon Flank
Recovery Factors %
(MMstb)
Low
Best
High
Low
Best
High
Low
Best
High
79
497
3014
20
30
42
16
149
1266
Table 10.10 Typhoon Flank Prospective Resources, with a GPoS of 16%
10.6 Typhoon and Tempest Risk Assessment

Tempest is a discovery, as is the very upper part of Typhoon containing heavy oil within structural
closure. The Typhoon Flank which is prognosed to contain light oil in fractured basement is a
prospect which requires a well to be drilled and oil sampled from the reservoir and brought to surface
to be classified as a discovery. The Tempest/Typhoon heavy oil discovery is probably highly viscous
(approximately 1000 cp) and will have low recovery factors. As a result the chance of development as
a stand-alone heavy oil project is considered low (10-20%). The following uncertainties still exist and
need further investigation/clarification prior to a final development decision
Rona sand facies distribution.
Yet to flow oil to surface (without reverse circulation).
49
ECV2055
68
RPS Energy
Basement oil volumes and location of OWC.
Definition of fluid properties (particularly viscosity).
However, if light oil is discovered in fractured basement similar to that being appraised at Lancaster, a
development is more likely and incremental heavy oil might become economic. RPS currently assigns
a GPoS of 16% to the Typhoon Flank prospect.
ECV2055
69
RPS Energy
11. STRATHMORE OIL DISCOVERY

11.1 Summary
The Strathmore oil discovery lies in blocks 204/30a and 205/26a within the East Solan Basin (see
Figure 3.1), which is considered a back-basin because it is sheltered from the main Faeroe-Shetland
Basin by the Rona Ridge. The adjacent Solan discovery lies only in block 205/26a, which is operated
by Premier, and Hurricane has no participating interest in it. Strathmore has a Triassic Otter Bank
Sandstone reservoir, which is overlain by tight Triassic Foula Sandstone. It is a stratigraphiccombination trap caused by truncation and sealing of the Triassic sands beneath a base Jurassic
unconformity to the north-west and dip closure in the other directions. Strathmore has been drilled by
two wells, the discovery well, 205/26a-3, drilled in 1991 by Amerada Hess, and the 204/30a-3
appraisal well which was drilled in 1995. The discovery well was tested at a rate of 240 bopd by a
DST in the Lower Triassic Otter Bank Sandstone. However, 204/30a-3 was a horizontal well that was
drilled mostly in the impermeable overlying Triassic Foula Sandstone and was not tested. Well
205/26a-4 just tagged the edge of the reservoir above an OWC, whilst 205/26a-5Z penetrated the
reservoir below it. 204/30a-2 is located down-dip on the south flank of the closure and the Otter Bank
reservoir was water-wet.
Neither Strathmore nor Solan, which has an Upper Jurassic, intra Kimmeridge Clay Formation
sandstone reservoir, is on production and development plans are not available.
Since the previous RPS report was written, further studies have been carried out on Strathmore by
50 51
. In their 2008 Permeability Review, Senergy reviewed all legacy data and reported their
Senergy
best assessment of the permeability of the Otter Bank Sandstone (OBS), on which they formed a
more optimistic view than that previously held. However, definitive evaluation depends on appraisal
drilling being carried out. In 2009, Senergy conducted a field development review in which they
conclude that there is potential development opportunity in the Strathmore Field, but further appraisal
and testing need to be carried out to constrain the reservoir, establish deliverability and the extent of
an asphaltene mat recognised in well 205-26a-3. They also point out that Solan Field operator,
Premier, is further advanced in that fields development, but despite this a joint development would be
the ideal way forward.
11.2 Geophysical Interpretation and Mapping

RPS has checked the interpretation of the OBS over the field area. The poor quality of the seismic
data below the Triassic unconformity, combined with the lack of contrast between the OBS and the
silty shales of the overburden make the interpretation of the top reservoir difficult. Deeper in the
reservoir, though way below the contact, the overburden becomes more shaley, the acoustic
impedance (AI) contrast increases and the interface at top OBS is slightly better imaged (see Figure
11.1).
In general, the interpretation is reasonable. However, faults that are clearly interpretable in the
overlying unconformity are not imaged in the reservoir on the seismic data and are therefore not
interpreted. For example, there is a graben trending down-dip through the centre of the field that can
be seen at the unconformity. It is probable that this also exists in the OBS, and in this case, will downthrow rock volume below the contact. However, it is felt that this factor has been taken care of in the
GRV uncertainty range.
50
Strathmore Field: Permeability Review, November 2008
51
Strathmore Field: Development Review, January 2009
ECV2055
70
RPS Energy
204/30a-2
205/26a-3
Faults not honoured in

OBS interpretation
Chalk/Valhall
Kimm Clay Fm
Foula more ratty

Accurate interpretation
impossible where no AI
contrast
Possible multiple issue?
OBS imaged better down dip
Base OBS (OB Shales)

equally difficult. Why does
OBS thin here?
Figure 11.1 Seismic Section through the Strathmore Field showing poor quality of the
reservoir reflectors (Yellow OBS)
11.3 Geological Model

The reservoir interval is the Triassic Otterbank Sandstone. The sands are interpreted to have been
deposited in a fluvial to aeolian environment and show good lateral continuity across the field area.
Based on permeability profiles the OBS has been subdivided into four reservoir units. The middle
units, B and C, exhibit the best reservoir properties reflecting an increase in aeolian sand content.
A review of the zonal correlations suggests the OBS thins in the southern-most well 204/30a-3. It is
the RPS view that the thinning is due to faulting and a more normal OBS thickness should be restored.
The volumetric impact is negligible due to very limited area of influence of the thinning.
11.4 Strathmore Volumetrics

The GRV was based on the mapped top OBS with an isopach thickness used to determine the base.
11.4.1 Contacts
The field OWC is reasonably clearly defined from the RFT/MDT pressure measurement taken in
various wells. A contact at 2682 m TVDSS is determined from the pressure data which agrees well
with deepest logged oil at 2688 m TVDSS, Figure 11.2. RPS has used the both depths as a range for
input to the probabilistic analysis with 2682 m TVDSS contact illustrated on the top Otterbank surface
in Figure 11.3.
ECV2055
71
RPS Energy
Strathmore RFT data

Formation Pressure (psi)
3500
3600
3700
3800
3900
4000
4100
4200
4300
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
7000
26a-4
Solan-oil
7500
26a-4
Otterbankwater
8000
Solan ODT
26a-5z ~8573ft (-2613m)
8500
TVDss (ft)
-8800ft(-2682m)
Deepest shows in
26a-4 ~8818ft (-2688m)
9000
9500
26a-3
Otterbankoil
26a-4
Otterbankoil
30a-2
Otterbankwater
10000
10500
11000
204_30a-2
Oil Gradient
204_30a-3
Water Gradient
205-26a-3
Oil Gradient 2
205-26a-4
After Equipoise
Figure 11.2 Strathmore Formation Pressure plot
Figure 11.3 Top Otterbank Sandstone depth map
ECV2055
72
RPS Energy
Well 205-26a-3 encountered an asphaltene layer of approximately 60 ft (18 m), with a base at -8662 ft
52
TVDSS (2640 m TVDSS). The core description reports black, dead oil with bitumen infilling pore
spaces. Herries et al suggested that this results from there being two separate pulses of hydrocarbon
charge with younger, lighter oil displacing older, heavier oil with residues being left in-situ. Well
205/26a-4 did not encounter the tar mat, but it reached top OBS down-dip at -8789 ft TVDSS (2679m
TVDSS), 16 ft (5 m) above an OWC at 8805 ft TVDSS (2684 m TVDSS). This layer is included in the
STOIIP evaluation. RPS also ran sensitivities examining possible effects of the tar mat, should it be
present (Section 11.5.4).
11.4.2 STOIIP Inputs and Results
RPS reviewed the petrophysical evaluation of the Strathmore wells 204/26a-2 and 3 to compare to the
reservoir properties distributed in the Equipoise/Senergy Petrel model. Our results demonstrated a
good agreement with both porosity and water saturations. The model had the Net to Gross ratios set
at 100% and RPS reduced these to reflect the values calculated in the 204/26a-3.
Based on our evaluation and the populated Petrel model probabilistic ranges were derived as
detailed in Table 11.1below with results in Table 11.2.
Low
Best
2682
High
2688
N:G (%)
73
83
93
Porosity (%)
12
14
16
Sw (%)
40
50
60
Bo (rb/stb)
1.1
1.1
1.1
Table 11.1 Strathmore Otterbank Volumetric Input Parameters RPS Case
Otterbank
Low
Best
High
Mean
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
131
182
246
186
Table 11.2 RPS Estimated Otterbank STOIIP in Strathmore (100% Basis)
11.5 Reservoir Engineering

11.5.1 Recent Studies
53
As noted previously, a number of reports on Strathmore have been written by Equipoise/ERC

55
2007 and Senergy in 2008/9.
in
The Equipoise/ERC report includes a review of the reservoir geology, petrophysics, and fluid data of
the Solan and Strathmore discoveries and the construction of both static and dynamic reservoir
models which were subsequently used to screen possible development scenarios for both fields.
Scoping economics of each development scenario were also conducted, with some price sensitivities
included based on oil price forecast and facilities costs.
The Senergy studies include a permeability review (November 2008) and Field Development Review
(January 2009). The permeability review examines core data and test data to establish the potential
range of permeability and the most appropriate method to upscale core permeability to DST test scale
and attempts to provide an assessment of reservoir permeability based on integrating all available
data.
The Field Development review revisits the Equipoise work, updating the Equipoise dynamic model
with Senergys permeability work and adjusting well placement/numbers, using high angle wells and
hydraulically fractured injectors. The report also outlines a number of recommendations for further
work.
Both Equipoise/ERC and Senergy appear to agree that the main issue regarding potential
development of the Strathmore field is the in situ permeability.
52
Solan, Strathmore and the back basin play, West of Shetland, R. Herries et al, 1999
ECV2055
73
RPS Energy
Data from different sources offer conflicting values of permeability, which causes uncertainty in the
likely recovery factors for the field. For example, Equipoise note that the average core derived
permeability for DST 1/1A test interval is 94.2 mD, yet the permeability derived from Pressure
Transient Analysis (PTA) for 205/26a-3 DST1/1A is 5 mD.
Equipoise/ERC reject the core derived permeability data, commenting that they conclude that the
53
core measured permeabilities are not representative of the reservoir and that It is our view that the
most reliable predictor of permeability from the perspective of hydrocarbon production is that derived
54
from well testing, despite the low flowrates achieved from these tests.
However, Senergy conclude that The information from the well tests in 205/26a-3 is inconclusive and
the PLT results are of little use and furthermore that It is believed that a combination of well or
formation damage and viscosity variation within the reservoir could be responsible for the low
productivity of the well. Consequently, provided a future well is designed and completed to mitigate
against formation damage, and the viscosity uncertainties are addressed, there could be upside
55
potential in the Otterbank sand.
Both reports appear to conclude that the only way to further define the permeability range for the field
is through further appraisal drilling and collection of additional data.
11.5.2 PVT/Fluid Data
A number of PVT samples have been taken from the 205/26a-3 well during DST1A, as shown in Table
11.3:
Sample #
Saturation
Pressure
(psia)
Oil FVF
(rb/stb)
Oil Gravity
(API)
Solution GOR
(scf/stb)
Oil
Viscosity
(cp)
Gas
Gravity
1.12
640
1.124
22.87
102
5.37
1.096
1.14
645
1.124
22.76
102
6.67
1.094
1.19
645
1.129
22.86
107
5.21
1.112
BHS01
620
n/a
n/a
92
n/a
1.122
Table 11.3 Strathmore PVT Properties

Black oil properties were generated by Equipoise for use in their simulation based on average values
taken from the table above. These tables were also adopted by Senergy in their later work.
Some fluid analyses and also the well test reports note the presence of H2S within some samples,
though where measured these are typically reported to be low (<1 ppm). It is not clear if these values
are accurate, but Mercaptan/H2S analysis of Solan oil samples shows total sulphur content of 2.2% by
weight so it is possible that significant H2S could be present.
56
Additionally, asphaltene deposition studies conducted on fluid samples taken from both Solan and
Strathmore concluded that 'In general under examined tubing pressure regimes, asphaltenes could be
detected forming as an adherent deposit under flowing conditions' and that 'Apshaltene deposition
should therefore be anticipated upon production and measures taken to counter line blockage
considered. Extremely stable emulsions of high viscosity were produced at 190F and if occuring
during production would give rise to significant modifications to fluid rheologies and potential
production problems.' While there is no way to consider the potential impacts of this within simulation
work, it does demonstrate that there is the potential for flow assurance issues associated with the
Strathmore field which should be further examined as part of the appraisal process moving forward.
11.5.3 Rock Properties/SCAL
There are no laboratory measurements of relative permeability on core plugs taken from Strathmore.
53
Equipoise/ERC Solan and Strathmore Fields: Development Review, Dec. 2007, p.3
54
As above, p. 29
55
Strathmore Development Review, Senergy, January 2009
56
Lab Report LRAH 081, Oilfield Chemical Technology Ltd, January 1995
ECV2055
74
RPS Energy
Equipoise assumed Corey-type relative permeability curves for water/oil flow and straight line relative
permeability curves for gas/oil flow, using the following relative permeability end points.
Residual oil saturation 0.20
Critical gas saturation 0.05
End point oil relative permeability 0.90
End point water relative permeability 0.30
End point gas relative permeability 0.90
Corey exponent (water) 2.50
Corey exponent (oil/water) 3.00
Corey exponent (gas) 1.00
Corey exponent (oil/gas) 1.00
Senergy have used the same relative permeability tables in their work, as have RPS.
As discussed in Section 11.5.1, the main issue regarding rock properties in Strathmore relates to the
permeability. There is considerable uncertainty about the true permeability of the Otterbank
sandstone reservoir.
Four wells drilled and logged in the Otterbank, 204/30a-2 penetrated a full sequence of Otterbank
(179m) below the OWC. 204/30a-3 penetrated a partial sequence of Otterbank, also below the OWC.
205/26a-3 (the Strathmore discovery well) encountered a full sequence of Otterbank (187m) above the
OWC, while 205/26a-4 encountered a full sequence of Otterbank (178m) but was drilled down dip of
the discovery well and penetrated the reservoir just above the OWC.
Three sets of core data exist:
205/26a-3 air permeability data (cleaned and drilled core, 400 psia overburden)
205/26a-4 oil permeability data ('fresh state' core, 3,000 psia overburden)
205/26a-4 helium permeability data (cleaned and drilled core, 400 psia overburden)
The discrepancies between conventional gas permeabilities measured on core from the 205/26a-3
well and the well test derived permeabilities resulted in Hess conducting a series of special core
57
analysis (SCAL). The Hess SCAL report comments that 'little sensitivity to the cleaning methods
utilised was noted in the air permeability and SEM results, However, SEM did detect some damage to
clay structures which had presumably occurred during core recovery. Additionally, overburded
analyses showed the core samples displayed extreme overburden pressure sensitivity'
The SCAL report concluded that this overburden sensitivity could be the main reason for the
differences between well test and conventional core permeability results.
Equipoise note that 'the 205/26a-3 results were made by Geochem, but were thought to be overoptimistic due to damage to clay minerals (principally kaolinite/chlorite) in core plug preparation or
58
during the analysis itself' and that this resulted in the 205/26a-4 core being analysed in a 'fresh state'
using oil at the assumed connate water saturation and overburden stress before subsequent cleaning
and re-measurement at 400 psia overburden with helium.
This issue has been extensively covered by Hess
59
58
and Equipoise .
In short, there are significant questions regarding the results of the core permeability results, Both
Equipoise and Senergy have examined all available log and core data and come up with different
porosity-permeability transforms which are subsequently used in their static and dynamic modelling
work. Both parties' dynamic models also use the well test data to adjust their models, but the resulting
recoveries from both models are broadly similar.
57
Special Core Analysis Study upon Core Samples Recovered from Well 205/26a-3, November 1991
58
Equipoise/ERC Solan and Strathmore Fields: Development Review, Dec. 2007, Appendix 1
59
Permeability Study of the Triassic Otterbank Sandstone of the Solan Field, Dean, July 1994
ECV2055
75
RPS Energy
11.5.4 Well Tests

As discussed above, Equipoise state that the most reliable predictor for permeability is the well test,
while Senergy take the opposite view, preferring the core analysis results for permeability estimation.
RPS has reviewed the original paper copies of the testing reports for 205/26a-3 DST1/1A and DST 2.
Both are summarised here.
11.5.4.1 205/26a-3 DST1/1A
DST1/1A tested 2 zones utilising the same string. The string was composed of a conventional
annular pressure responsive DST string above a selectively fired 4 TCP (Tubing Conveyed
60
Perforating) gun set.
The two test zones were to be perforated from 8,758 8,700 ft MD (2669 2652 m MD) (Zone 1) and
8,665 8,392 ft MD (2641 2558 m MD) (Zone 1A).
Testing operations commenced on the 30th August 1990. For the lower test zone, a 500 psia underbalance was achieved by circulating a diesel cushion into the test string. On firing the guns, no
immediate indications were detected at surface and on opening the well through a 16/64 choke, for a
15 minute initial flow, the only fluids recovered were from the surface lines draining down, indicating
the well was not flowing. After a 2 hour shut-in, the well was again opened on a 16/64 choke for 3
hours, but did not flow at surface.
Nitrogen injection via coiled tubing was subsequently attempted but the well still failed to flow,
retrieving only some of the diesel cushion and traces of drilling fluid. Following this, slickline and
gradiometers were used to find the fluid level. This found the fluid level at 3,291 ft MD (1003 m MD)
and rising at a rate of 80 ft/hour (24.5 m/hour), equivalent to a flow rate of 27 bfpd (presumably based
on drill string volume). On retrieving the gradiometer to surface, the bottom 600 ft (183 m) of cable
were covered in thick black crude oil.
Two bottom hole samplers runs were then made. The first run recovered a single oil sample from
8,163 ft MD (2488 m MD). A second run took a further 2 samples, though both were found to contain
only drilling mud and traces of oil.
At this point, operations were suspended due to problems on the rig. When operations recommenced,
Zone 1A was perforated. Wellhead pressure rose after perforating to 515 psia, with the well shut at
surface. After approximately 1 hour, the well was opened on a 12/64 choke for 15 minutes, retrieving
only nitrogen, with the well-head pressure dropping to 190 psia.
The well was shut-in down-hole for 2 hours. A slickline run to drop off the TCP (Tubing Conveyed
Perforation) assembly found the fluid level at 8,854 ft MD (2699 m MD). No flow was observed for 3
hours after opening the well during the slickline work. Only a few gallons of water were retrieved in
the following 4 hours also (for a total of 7 hours open).
At this point, the entire drill string volume was displaced to nitrogen via coiled tubing. The well then
flowed for 12 hours unaided, with the latter 6 hours without the coiled tubing in the well. Final flow-rate
average for this period was 11 bbl/hour (264 bbl/d). Trace H2S and up to 0.3% CO2 were recorded
during this period. Down-hole sampling was subsequently run, recovering 3 oil samples between
8,246 8,397 ft MD (2513 2559 m MD).
A PLT (Production Logging Tool) was then run, with calibration passes made with the well shut-in at
surface. During the calibration passes, SIWHP (Shut-in Wellhead Pressure) increased, indicating flow
into the well during the calibration, with makes the results of the PLT flow rates questionable.
The well was then opened on a 16/64 choke with the PLT string down-hole, and gradually increased
to 36/64 choke before allowing the flow to stabilise. Once flow stabilised at a rate of approximately
350 bbl/d, the flowing passes were made. The well was subsequently closed-in at surface and shut-in
for 7 hours, before pressure gradient stations were taken at various levels and the PLT string
recovered.
Stimulation of zone 1A was also attempted, using an acid flush via coiled tubing. Following acid
treatment, the well was again opened up and flowed naturally on a 36/64 choke at a rate of 6 bbl/h
(144 bbl/d) prior to being shut in to make a PLT run.
60
205/26a-3 Well Test Report DST 1/1A, MacKinley A., Amerada Hess, June 1991
ECV2055
76
RPS Energy
Shut-in calibration passes were made before opening the well again on a 36/64 choke at 10 bbl/hr
(240 bbl/d) Once the flowing passes were completed, the well was again shut in at surface with the
PLT down-hole to monitor pressure build-up. However, this operation was abandoned less than 2
hours later due to worsening weather and the string was retrieved to surface and operations shut
down, closing all down-hole valves and disconnecting the riser from the subsea test tree.
More than 24 hours later, the riser was re-latched and two further sampling runs were made, collecting
6 samples from 6 attempts, before the well was killed with 10.4 ppg KCl/polymer mud.
Based on the description of the operations, both tests were far from ideal. Flow rates for DST1 are
almost certainly not correct, based on gradiometer readings of changing fluid levels within the
wellbore.
DST1A achieved better results, with flow being achieved to surface (after displacing the entire drill
string volume with nitrogen). Results from the PLT run prior to stimulation are questionable due to
downhole flow during the calibration passes. It is not clear from reports if downhole flow was detected
during calibration of the post stimulation PLT, so these results may be more accurate. However, the
post stimulation build-up period was restricted due to weather.
11.5.4.2 205/26a-3 DST2
DST2 involved underbalanced perforation of the interval 8,160 8,340 ft MD (2487 2542 m MD) via
TCP.
Following the experience of DST1/1A, the entire drill string was displaced to nitrogen prior to
perforating. Good indications of firing were observed, but only nitrogen was produced to surface
during the initial flow. Following an overnight shut-in, coiled tubing was run in hole to further lift the
well, resulting in some mud with oil traces and nitrogen being produced to surface. However, no
significant flow to surface was achieved and the wellhead pressure was bled down to zero. A wireline
run was subsequently made to identify the the fluid level, which was found at 940 ft MD (286.5 m MD).
Bottom hole samplers were then run in hole, with 4 samples taken at 5,700 ft MD (1737 m MD). On
retrieving the bottomhole samplers, the fluid level was found at 480 ft MD (146 m MD). Allowing for
fluids added to the string due to pressure testing prior to wireline runs, this equates to an influx rate
from the reservoir of approximately 17 bfpd.
A further coiled tubing run to lift the well with nitrogen produced approximately 100 bbl of oil to surface
with a nitrogen injection rate of 200 scf/min. Following this, a further period of natural flow achieved a
flow rate of approximately 20 bfpd based on changes in fluid level. No fluid was flowed to surface
under natural flow and the well was subsequently shut in for 24 hours, prior to killing the well, ending
the test.
11.5.4.3 Well Test Analysis
Analysis of the DST data by Hess and Equipoise both result in permeabilities around 7.5 mD and
negative skin. These results are not consistent with core results. Additionally, the oil viscosity
variations and presence of reactive clays (which could cause formation damage inconsistent with
negative skin) were also noted by Senergy in the core and fluid data available.
Based on the quality of the testing operations, and given Senergy's observations, the results of the
well test analyses conducted by Hess and Equipoise are questionable. Data quality is generally poor
and there are a number of inputs, most notably the fluid flow rates, which are inferred from limited data
based on changes in fluid level rather than flow rates recorded at surface, particularly for DST1 and
DST2. Flow rates for DST1A are recorded, but the short build-up time due to weather forcing a
shutdown of test operations makes these test results dubious also.
Given these observations, RPS are inclined to agree with Senergy that the well test results are
inconclusive and of little use.
Both Equipoise and Senergy have created simulation models for Strathmore, with Equipoise originally
creating an IMEX model, which was subsequently converted to ECLIPSE by Senergy. RPS has
concentrated on the ECLIPSE model.
RPS has adjusted the Senergy ECLIPSE model to represent both parties views on permeability,
and examined various production cases for both models.
ECV2055
77
RPS Energy
The model has been set up with only oil and water in situ, such that the model fails if pressures drop
below the bubble point pressure (Pb). While this is reasonable, as the reservoir would most likely be
produced above the bubble point with water injection to provide pressure support, it does mean that
simulations fail if the pressures within the model drop below Pb.
Equipoise ran a number of sensitivity cases using their simulation model, including natural depletion
vs. water injection, various different completion strategies, changes to critical water saturation and the
potential effects of a higher viscosity oil leg based on the tar mat identified by Herries et al.
While most of these sensitivities are reasonable, the simulation of the tar mat was done on a very
basic level based on the Equipoise report and IMEX models provided by Hurricane.
Firstly, oil viscosity within the tar mat was increased by a factor of 10 with no real justification as to
why this value was chosen.
Secondly, the tar mat was implemented by using a separate PVT region in direct communication with
the lower viscosity oil leg. This results in oil moving from one PVT region to another taking on the
properties of the second PVT region and as a result does not correctly model the higher viscosity oil
moving through the reservoir.
As a result of this, while the tar mat sensitivity cases do demonstrate a reduction in recovery factor, it
is not clear if the reduction is representative of what would occur in reality should the tar mat exist and
be moveable, nor how the mixing of the 2 differing viscosity oils would affect production.
This could only be accomplished correctly with a fully compositional simulation model which would
track how the oil composition changes as the two oil types mix within the reservoir. RPS has not
attempted to create a fully compositional model as this would consist of a large body of work which is
not within the scope of this report.
Given the lack of good data on fluid composition and the existence of the tar mat available to date,
further efforts should probably be concentrated on acquiring additional data from the field rather than
attempting to create a fully compositional model using the available data, though in the event that
further appraisal confirms the tar mat, compositional modelling would likely be required to correctly
assess recovery mechanisms for the field.
Senergy's simulation work concentrated on further evaluation of possible development scenarios,
including the use of high angle/horizontal production wells and fracture stimulated injection wells.
11.5.6 Recoverable Volumes
RPS has classified the Otterbank sandstone volumes as Contingent Resources (Development on
Hold). RPS has examined Senergys cases and broadly accepted their development scenario, though
well numbers have been increased to better sweep the reservoir and the drilling schedule has also
been adjusted as the Senergy drilling schedule was considered to be optimistic.
As a result, RPS has utilised 5 high angle production wells producing via ESP and 4 down flank water
injection wells to provide pressure support to the reservoir by attempting to maintain the initial
reservoir pressure.
The following field controls have been used in all cases, Table 11.4:
Model Parameter
Value Used
Field Production Start
1st Jan 2023
Production Well Minimum BHP/THP
800/450 psia
Injection Well Maximum THP
5,872 psia
Maximum Well Injection Rate
15,000 stb/d
Maximum Field Injection Rate

Maximum Net Field Oil Production Rate
45,000 stb/d
1
10,200 stb/d
Production Well Working Factor
80%
Production Well Maximum Water Cut
90%
Notes
1..This represent's Hurricane's Net Entitlement of the Maximum Field Oil Rate
Table 11.4 Field Production/Injection Controls
ECV2055
78
RPS Energy
However, the discrepancy between core and well test derived permeabilities are still not suitably
resolved. RPS has therefore considered all possibilities (both core and well test derived permeability
in their scenarios.
Additionally, the drilling schedule used in RPS models is as shown in Table 11.5:
Well
Production/Injection Start Date
Horizontal Producer HZ1
1st Jan 2023
1st Jun 2023
1st Sept 2023
1st June 2024
1st Sept 2024
Injector I1
1st May 2025
Injector I2
1st Jul 2025
Injector I3
1st Sept 2025
Injector I4
1st May 2025
Table 11.5 Well Production/Injection Start Dates

RPS has made adjustments to the Senergy model, including adjusting STOIIP to match RPS
probabilistic volumes using pore volume multipliers, and re-run selected sensitivities to scope the
range of recovery factors. The RPS Low and Best cases utilise the Senergy permeability model
matched to the well test data, which is broadly similar to the Equipoise permeabilities after matching to
the well test data. For the High case, RPS has considered the scenario where the core derived
permeabilities (which are approximately and order of magnitude better than the well test derived
permeabilities) are correct, resulting in a much better recovery from the field.
As a result, RPS has estimated recoverable volumes as shown in Table 11.6.
STOIIP (MMstb)
Contingent Resources(MMstb)
Resource
Low
Best
High
Low
Best
High
1C
2C
3C
Strathmore
131
182
246
15
18
23
20
32
57
Table 11.6 Strathmore Contingent Resource On Block Volumes (MMstb)
ECV2055
79
RPS Energy
25,000
100,000,000
Mid Case Oil Rate
High Case Oil Rate
Low Case Oil Rate
Mid Case Cumulative Oil Production
20,000
80,000,000
High Case Cumulative Oil Production
15,000
60,000,000
10,000
40,000,000
5,000
20,000,000
Cumulative Production (stb)
Oil Rate (stb/d)
Low Case Cumulative Oil Production
0
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Years
Figure 11.4 Strathmore Production Profiles
11.6 Strathmore Risk Assessment

When Equipoise and Senergy reviewed Strathmore they both concluded that a standalone
development was not economic and therefore that a combined Strathmore/Solan development was
more likely. Hurricanes current preferred development option is a subsea tieback to the Lancaster
hub. As discussed previously, a number of significant factors could negatively impact development
potential, primarily the real permeability of the formations, the presence or lack of a tar mat and
associated higher viscosity oil and potential production issues relating to H2S and flow assurance
issues relating to asphaltene deposition and emulsions forming in the well and pipelines. Further
appraisal of the asset and extensive work on resolving these potential issues would be required before
the field could be put into production. Development economics need to be reviewed in the light of
current costs and oil prices. The likelihood is that the technical issues may be overcome with new
data, either from new wells or seismic data and additional fluid studies. The following uncertainties
still exist and need further investigation/clarification prior to a final development decision:
True sand permeabilities.
Presence of tar mat unclear - potential effects on recovery.
Definition of fluid properties (H2S content and flow assurance issues).
Issues regarding potential unitisation.
ECV2055
80
RPS Energy
12. LANCASTER COSTS AND FACILITIES

12.1 Development Cases - Discussion
Hurricane has approached the appraisal stage of Lancaster in a sensible and methodical fashion.
Since the 2011 CPR Hurricane has undertaken a series of engineering studies to comprehensively
review the various development options for the field. They have commissioned numerous studies to
review the critical aspects of the development. This Development Case section primarily uses the
61
results from Hurricanes Concept Select Cost Estimate and Economics Report as a basis to discuss
the possible developments, in order to generate costs for the economic analysis.
The development cases and associated costs provided by Hurricane were reviewed by RPS and, in
general, were found to be reasonable. The costs (FPSO, topsides, drill centres, subsea systems and
pipelines, etc.) had been generated by Hurricane based on work carried out by various experienced
contractors, primarily EPC, incorporating input and reviews from specialists such as Crondall for the
FPSO; AGR for the drilling and Axis for artificial lift aspects of the well design.
Although a significant amount of work has been carried out, there are still sufficient unknowns in the
project to suggest that the accuracy of these costs would typically be expected to be -20% to +50%.
RPS believes the contingency of between 20% and 30% used by Hurricane is reasonable.
Several different combined development cases were considered, all based on a standalone Lancaster
(hub) development subsea production wells, drilled from several drill centres, tied back to metering
hubs and then via pipelines, to riser base manifolds, which in turn, were connected to a new build,
FPSO (Floating Production Storage and Offloading) unit by flexible risers and umbilicals. In all cases
it was assumed that oil would be exported via shuttle tanker.
In all development cases it was assumed that there would be a gas import/export pipeline. Currently
there is only one system within the vicinity of Lancaster - the West of Shetland Pipeline system
(WOSPS) operated by BP, however Hurricane advises that they are aware that an alternative gas
export line may be installed in the West of Shetlands in 2017, operated by Chevron for the export of
Rosebank gas and potentially third party gas. If however the WOSPS remains the only viable export
route for processed gas then, depending on the point of sale i.e. offshore or onshore, subsequent
transportation and processing will be required. The East of Shetland Pipeline (EOSP), NLGP
(Northern Leg Gas Pipeline) and FLAGS/SEGAL (Far North Liquids and Gas Pipeline/Shell Esso Gas
and Liquids) systems could be used to deliver sales quality gas into the UK National Transmission
System at St Fergus in the northeast of Scotland, with the delivery of separated natural gas liquids into
either the Shell operated SEGAL system or the onshore section of the BP operated Forties Pipeline
System. In addition, this will not only reduce flaring, but will also provide a back-up supply of fuel gas
which could be necessary if the gas produced from Lancaster is less than predicted. This is unlikely to
be required before the end of year three.
From the information available on the Lancaster Field, it would appear that the Basement reservoir
encountered does not differ significantly from those found in Vietnam. The most significant differences
between the Lancaster Field and the fields containing Basement reservoirs in Vietnam are the
environmental conditions and the water depth.
The deep water over the West of Shetland continental slope is exposed to a large westerly fetch and
strong winds (particularly from the west and southwest); these conditions generate an extreme wave
regime in the area. The wave climate is far more severe than the northern North Sea as illustrated in
Table 12.1 below; it is relatively calm for only 12% of the time West of Shetland compared with 41% in
the North Sea.
61
Concept Select Cost Estimate and Economics Report - HEX-LAN-EPC-REP-0038 1 Feb.2013
ECV2055
81
RPS Energy
Percentage Annual Exceedance
Significant Wave
Height (m)
North Sea
West of Shetland
59%
88%
28%
58%
13%
34%
5%
19%
2%
10%
<1%
5%
Table 12.1 Metocean Data Comparison between North Sea and West of Shetland
The water depth in Lancaster is around 155 metres and this, coupled with the more severe weather
conditions, means that it not possible to use jack-up drilling rigs to drill the development wells. The
cost of installing a fixed jacket with its own drilling rig would be prohibitively expensive, particularly
considering the low well count. Therefore the Lancaster Field will need to be developed using sub-sea
technology. This will require a different approach to reservoir management to be adopted compared
to that taken in Vietnam, for example.
The major disadvantage of a subsea development is that it is difficult and hence expensive to access
the wells for routine maintenance and data acquisition during operations. This has influenced
Hurricanes decision to utilise gas lift instead of electric submersible pumps to unload the wells due to
either early water breakthrough or declining reservoir pressures. The gaslift system is inherently more
suitable to intermittent operation and should be more reliable than downhole electric pumps. This has
been taken into account in RPS operating cost estimates, see Section 12.1.2 below.
A summary of costs estimates can be found in Appendix B.
12.1.1 Capital Costs (Capex)
There are still some uncertainties that will influence a development, the major ones are:
Oil in place volumes
Large scale reservoir heterogeneity with particular reference to the fracture geometry and
permeability and also compartmentalisation
Aquifer size and connectivity and how it will affect water cut development in the producing
wells
Additionally from a wells point of view the following are uncertainties:
optimum well geometry and placement
well productivity (including skin factor mitigation and removal)
Any development scheme will have to be flexible enough to handle these uncertainties.
12.1.1.1 Drilling and Completion Design
A significant portion of the overall development cost is well related, particularly if any of the
subsequent fields (after Lancaster) are developed. Hurricane has used AGR to provide time/depth
curves and costs for their proposed development wells. RPS has reviewed these figures and believes
that the Hurricane estimates are reasonable, based on a rig rate of initially US$400,000 per day from
2014, with an additional 20% contingency.
In order to minimise the drilling costs it has been assumed that the fields will be developed using
multiple drill centres distributed evenly throughout the field. It may be possible to optimise this during
the early stages of the conceptual development programme. Development wells are assumed to be
horizontal wells with approximately 2,000 m of horizontal section.
There are many analogues around the world which show that whilst drilling in fractured basement
granite can be difficult, with appropriate technology these difficulties can be managed.
ECV2055
82
RPS Energy
It may be necessary to stimulate the wells in order to encourage them to flow at the required rates. In
analogue fields techniques such as acidisation or solvent washing to improve initial productivity have
been used. RPS believes that procedures such as these will be required on a regular basis to
maintain the expected productivity of the wells.
The relatively low initial reservoir pressure and the possibility of water production from the aquifer
necessitates the inclusion of artificial lift. It has therefore been assumed that artificial lift will be
provided from start-up with completions fitted with multiple gas lift mandrels. Initially only one gaslift
valve may be installed but this can be modified relatively inexpensively based on actual production
data.
Water Injection is not thought to be an appropriate reservoir management technique due to probable
rapid water breakthrough through the fracture system.
The well timings and costs used in the Development Plan were calculated by AGR and are shown in
Table 12.2. A contingency of 20% had been added to all the drilling and completion estimates. These
durations are reasonable and RPS has based its drilling schedule on these numbers.
12.1.1.2 Drilling and Completion Costs

The drilling and completion costs, as shown in Table 12.2, were provided by Hurricane. RPS has
reviewed these costs and concluded they are reasonable, hence they were used in economic
calculations.
Well type
Well Name
Activity
Year (Base
Case)
AGR
Duration
Days
AGR Well Cost

$ Million (incl. 20%
Contingency)
Assumptions
PHASE (1)
Horizontal
Crestal
Surveillance
Horizontal
LDC5-a
2014
100
88.5
Drill and Test
LDC6-a
2015
67
63.6
Drill and Test
LDC1-b
2015
85
69.9
Drill and Clean-up
Horizontal
LDC1-a
2017
103
94.1
Drill, Test and

Complete
LDC6-a
2017
30
22.4
Complete
LDC1-b
2017
30
22.4
Complete
Horizontal
LDC5-a
2017
30
22.4
Complete
Horizontal
LDC5-b
2017
103
94.1
4z (Inclined)
LDC2-4z
2017
30
30.4
Crestal
Surveillance
Horizontal
Drill, Test and

Complete
Re-enter
and
Complete
Subtotal Phase 1
PHASE (2)
Horizontal
NW Flank
(Inclined)
507.8
LDC2-b
2020
88
81.0
LDC3-a
2021
80
75.0
East (Inclined)
LDC4-a
2021
90
75.3
Horizontal
LDC3-b
2023
88
81.0
Drill and Complete
Horizontal
LDC4-b
2023
88
81.0
Drill and Complete
Subtotal Phase 2
393.2
Total
911.4
Drill and Complete

Drill, Test
Complete
Drill, Test
Complete
and
and
Table 12.2 Hurricanes Drilling Durations and Cost Estimates

There are several factors that need to be taken into account when estimating the costs for the
development wells. Development drilling programmes would normally be expected to achieve
ECV2055
83
RPS Energy
significant costs savings through various optimisation studies (drill bit selection and mud programme,
for example) compared with exploration well timings. However, there are certain factors which could
potentially reduce these costs savings, such as:
Hurricane has suffered some skin damage in their exploration wells and it is probable that
improved mud technology and hence higher costs will be required to avoid these issues.
Actually drilling horizontal wells in fractured basement and successfully completing the wells
whilst minimising losses may be more difficult than assumed.
Managed Pressure Drilling is a process to control annular or bottom hole pressure. The
objective is to pre-determine a drilling window based on pore pressure and fracture pressure
to ensure the BHP remains in that window. The intent is to avoid substantial losses as well as
any influx. This technique may well lead to more productive wells, but will be more expensive
and has not been included in these cost estimates.
There may be a need to include an allowance for problem wells train wrecks. Typically
around 10% of development wells in these difficult conditions could experience significant cost
overruns i.e. more than a 20% increase, whereas a much smaller number (2 to 5%) could be
expected to experience major problems i.e. more than 50% cost overrun.
With regard to mobilisation and demobilisation, RPS hasn't assumed a continuous drilling programme
i.e. 365 days drilling (and completing) for every year. This is because the very poor winter weather
will severely curtail drilling operations, particularly if they involve moving from one well to another.
Therefore mob and de-mob for each years activities have been included where appropriate.
12.1.1.3 Facilities
RPS has reviewed a selection of the extensive technical studies, workshop reports and reviews that
Hurricane has carried out since late 2011. RPS agrees with the conclusions of these studies, that
some sort of floating production, storage and offloading vessel is the optimum development solution.
The concepts selected are a medium sized ship shaped FPSO or a Sevan 650 FPSO. These
concepts are of sufficient capacity to meet the demands of the Greater Lancaster Area (GLA) for
Phase 1 & 2.
The Medium FPSO (approx. 238m in length) is sized to accommodate production from the Lancaster
& Lincoln (Phase 1 & 2) development phases only. It can either be a new-build or a conversion. The
various concepts include either installing Phase 1 only upscalable to Phase 2 or a Phase 1 & 2
topsides.
The Sevan 650 FPSO is a circular structure sized to accommodate production from the two phases of
GLA from Lancaster and Lincoln. The topsides facility is designed to be able to process fluids for
Phase 1 only in Phase 1. It will need to return to port before Phase 2 to be upgraded. It would be a
new-build Sevan 650 vessel, which has been used as a drilling rig in other locations (including the
North Sea and off Brazil).
A conventionally moored FPSO requires the subsea wells to be drilled and completed by a drill rig and
the necessary supporting subsea equipment including pipelines, riser base structures and riser
support structures to have been installed. The development costs for the various cases are shown in
Table 12.3 and the associated operating costs, including leases costs where appropriate are shown in
Table 12.4.
ECV2055
84
RPS Energy
Development Costs $MM

Conventional Only
Case
Low Lease
Conventional only
Conventional +
Unconventional
Totals
Totals
Pre Field Investment

Decision
62.0
124.0
Drilling
507.8
911.4
Facilities/platforms
60.0
1,216.7
FPSO Retrofit
(Year 30)
n/a
245.0
Pipelines
261.8
444.7
Terminals
0.0
0.0
General
24.6
24.6
Total
916.2
2,966.5
Case
Base Case
Table 12.3 Lancaster Development Costs
Operating Costs $MM/yr

Conventional Only
Case
Low Lease
Conventional only
Conventional +
Unconventional
Offshore
77.5
77.5
Workovers Avg/yr
11.15
11.15
Initial Lease Costs

(First 5 years)
144.1
144.1
112.6
n/a
10.0
10.0
Case
Base Case
Follow-on Lease Costs

Typical Subsequent
(10 year period)
G&A
Table 12.4 Lancaster Operating Costs

In order to allow drill rig access over the subsea wells the FPSO must be located sufficiently far from
the subsea wells to allow the rig to moor on location over the wells, for the Lancaster water depth
155 m a drill rig mooring radius of 1500 m can be assumed, in order to generate a cost estimate
2000 m has been allowed. Depending on the selected mooring system for the FPSO, the FPSO
mooring radius may be of equal reach. This typically results in FPSOs being located a number of
kilometres away from the actual subsea wells which correspondingly requires additional Capex for the
associated pipelines.
ECV2055
85
RPS Energy
Lancaster Facilities: It has been assumed that the Lancaster production facilities will be located in
modules on the FPSOs deck and will be designed to handle in Phase 1 up to 37,500bpd of oil
production and 55,000 bpd of water. In reality fluid handling on a ship shaped vessel, (since weight
limitations are generally less critical than on a platforms topsides), is unlikely to be a major limitation,
since additional water handling equipment such as hydro-cyclones should be able to be easily
accommodated. Water handling will be via a combination of hydro-cyclones and settling tanks with
the cleaned up produced water being discharged overboard. In Phase 2 the oil capacity will be
increased to 75,000bpd.
st
The single train production facilities will comprise 2 stage oil/gas/water separation: a 1 stage
st
nd
separator, alongside a test separator (which can be utilised as a 1 stage separator) followed by a 2
stage separator. The gas will be compressed using a 100% electrically driven, 2 stage compressor.
In addition to the production equipment the FPSO will house all the utilities required to run the field (as
well as any future field requirements) such as power generation and hydraulic systems. A proportion
of the associated gas will be used for power generation, the remainder will be exported via the West of
Shetland Pipeline system (WOSPS) operated by BP.
Typical dimensions of pipelines required are shown in Table 12.5 below.
Parameter
Data/Comment
Production Pipeline between Metering Hub and

Host
14 (355.6mm) OD x 15.9mm WT Carbon Steel

pipeline, SPU insulation and 3LPP coating.
Production Pipeline between Drill Centres and

Metering Hub

pipeline, SPU insulation and 3LPP coating.
Gas Export Pipeline

pipeline, 3LPP external corrosion protection.
Table 12.5 Lancaster: Typical Pipeline Specifications

It is assumed that where appropriate, limited provision will be made within the proposed Lancaster
reference case facilities (on the basis of minimal pre-investment) to enable potential future tie back of
fields such as Whirlwind, to the Lancaster host facility should they be economically viable.
12.1.2 Development Cases
Various development scenarios for Lancaster were considered and are as follows:
Two main cases have been considered: Conventional Only case and Base Case these are
described below.
All cases assume that a leased floating production vessel is installed on the field, the minimum period
of this initial lease will be for five years. The design has not yet been finalised, but in order to run the
economics, it has been assumed that either a Mid Sized (Suez-Max) FPSO or a Sevan 650
Production Vessel will be used.
If it is decided to extend the lease for a further period it will be the subject of negotiation, almost
certainly it will have been agreed before the vessel is initially chartered. It will be at a significant
reduction to the initial 5 year lease. Depending upon what is determined from the production
information, Hurricane will have the option to buy-out the lease which will reduce the operating costs
and potentially increase the life of the field. The buyout amount has been calculated based on the
residual value of the vessel plus a profit element for the vessel owner.
In order to investigate the uncertainties in the reservoir, two production cases were reviewed: a
Conventional Only Case - Conventional Resources only and a Base Case: Conventional plus
Unconventional Resources.
The production vessel will only have sufficient facilities installed to handle the Phase 1 fluids. This
vessel will need to be taken off station and brought inshore to have additional (Phase 2) equipment
fitted if it is decided to continue with the Phase 2 development.
Lancaster Drilling Programme will occur in 2 phases. In all cases the initial (Phase 1) well programme
is the same.
ECV2055
86
RPS Energy
Phase 1 Well Programme: consisting of 6 wells pre-drilled (1 Inclined, 1 Surveillance, 4 Horizontal),

with all wells on stream from the beginning of 2019.
In the Conventional Only Case Conventional Resources only, no further drilling is justified and the
production vessel is not modified. Production is assumed to continue until the economic limit is
reached.
Base Case - it is assumed that Phase 1 proves the Conventional + Unconventional scenario by end
2020 (2 years of production). Hurricane will then go to their board for approval for Phase 2.
Phase 2 Well Programme: assuming that Conventional + Unconventional case has been proven, a
further 5 new wells will be required 2 additional inclined wells and 3 additional horizontal wells. All
wells will be drilled in the 2020-2023 period. Phase 1 production would then cease in Q4 2023, with
the FPSO then moved off station for inshore installation of the new Phase 2 equipment, returning to
station in Q2 2024, at which point production re-commences with 11 wells (the 6 phase 1 wells + 5
additional wells drilled 2020-2023).
A further economic sensitivity for the Phase 2 case is where instead of continuing the (reduced) lease
it was assumed that the lease would be bought out.
All wells will be tied back to the FPSO via drill centres, currently 4 in Phase 1 and an additional 2 in
Phase 2.
12.1.3 Production Vessel Life
RPS has assumed that the operational life of the vessel before it needs to be brought inshore to a dry
dock for major refurbishment, will be 30 years. Some of the higher resources cases indicate that the
field could be producing beyond 2049. In this case, it has been assumed that the vessel will be
brought inshore for extensive refurbishment at a cost of US$ 500 million (MOD) with a corresponding
interruption to production of 6 months.
The vessel will then be returned to production for up to a further 15 years after which it has been
assumed that the vessel will have reached to end of its useful life.
12.1.4 Operating Costs (Opex)
RPS has reviewed the Hurricane estimate for the FPSO Opex and associated support costs and has
agreed that they are reasonable for use in the economic analysis. See Table 12.4 and Table 12.6.
Although Hurricane suggests that there is a slight difference in operating costs between the FPSO and
the Sevan, RPS believes that it is prudent to use the figure of US$77.5 million per year considering the
exceptional environmental conditions that are going to be encountered and the lack of experience of
operating this type of field such as heated pipelines and horizontal basement wells.
ECV2055
87
RPS Energy
Medium FPSO OPEX
Annual ()
Annual ($)
Operations and
Maintenance
Permanent Core Crew
14,235,000
$22,064,250
39,000
$60,450
Duty Holder Onshore

Support
2,970,297
$4,603,960
8,138
$12,614
Various 3rd Party Services
3,177,510
$4,925,141
8,706
$13,494
Welfare
130,000
$201,500
356
$552
Vendor Support & Spares
1,253,230
$1,942,507
3,434
$5,322
Contingency
4,353,207
$6,747,472
11,927
$18,486
26,119,245
$40,484,829
71,560
$110,917
20%
Logistics by Air
2,353,060
$3,647,243
6,447
$9,992
Logistics by Sea
5,012,516
$7,769,400
13,733
$21,286
Rescue, Recovery & ERC
2,391,435
$3,706,725
6,552
$10,155
Shorebase
274,940
$426,157
753
$1,168
Lube Oil
40,000
$62,000
110
$170
Auxiliaries FO
423,871
$657,000
1,161
$1,800
Power Gen FO
1,941,027
$3,008,592
5,318
$8,243
Process Heating (inc above)
$0
$0
Production Chemicals
1,010,000
$1,565,500
2,767
$4,289
10
Contingency
20%
Total Logistics
Other
Daily ($)
Total Operations and Maintenance

Logistics
Daily ()
1
2
CO2 Emissions Charge

Average
Subsea Intervention and
Support
IVB Class & insurance etc
Field Operator G&A

(excluded)
Contingency
Total Other
Total
20%
2,689,370
$4,168,523
7,368
$11,421
16,136,220
$25,011,140
44,209
$68,524
1,429,632
$2,215,930
3,917
$6,071
2,636,280
$4,086,234
7,223
$11,195
2,408,665
$3,733,431
6,599
$10,229
$0
$0
1,294,915
$2,007,119
3,548
$5,499
7,769,492
$12,042,713
21,286
$32,994
50,024,957
$77,538,683
137,055
$212,435
Table 12.6 - FPSO Operating Cost Estimate

Analogue fields suggest that basement wells experience rapid production decline due to fines
migration and other mechanisms which require regular well interventions to reverse. In order to allow
for these activities RPS has included workovers at a frequency of one workover per well every three
years. Workovers may well be grouped to minimise mobilisation costs - if there is other activity in the
area then perhaps mobilisations could be shared - but this was not considered in this analysis.
Additional Opex has been included for the shuttle tanker of US$2/bbl and gas export into the WOSPS
of US$6/boe ($1/mscf).
12.1.5 Decommissioning Costs (Abex)
Decommissioning costs to be used in the economic analysis have been assumed to be 10% of total
Capex spend and are in line with Hurricanes estimates.
ECV2055
88
RPS Energy
13. SUMMARY OF COMMERCIAL ASSUMPTIONS AND VALUATION

13.1 Fiscal Assumptions
UK petroleum activities are taxed within a concessionary tax system. Company profits from upstream
oil and gas operations in the UK are subject to Corporation Tax (CT) at a rate of 30% and
Supplementary Charge at a rate of 32%. Both taxes are ring-fenced to upstream activities. Capital
and operating expenditures are allowed against tax as incurred once the company is in a tax paying
position. Abandonment and decommissioning costs are allowed at 100% against CT subject to there
being sufficient taxable revenues in prior years. The same relief applies to Supplementary Charge,
however this is currently only against the previous 20% Supplementary Charge rate.
A ring fence expenditure supplement (RFES) is available for companies with no taxable income. It
can be claimed on all ring fence expenditure. It increases the value of unused expenditure carried
forward from one period to another by a compound 10% a year. RFES can be claimed in respect of
not more than six accounting periods, but these may not be consecutive.
13.2 Tax Losses

Hurricane has stated that tax losses at the end of 2012 available for relief against future profits were
151million. These were included as allowances to offset against future taxable profits of Corporation
Tax and Supplementary Charge. No other tax balances were included in the valuation.
13.3 Economic Assumptions

13.3.1 Oil Price
rd
The value of the discovered oil has been referenced to the 2013 3 quarter RPS base price forecast
for Brent, which is shown in Table 13.1 below.
Year
Brent Base Case

US$/stb MOD
2013
104.70
2014
98.75
2015
94.53
2016
95.51
2017
97.42
2018
99.37
2019
101.35
2020
103.38
2021
105.45
2022
107.56
2023
109.71
2024
111.90
2025
114.14
2026
116.42
2027
118.75
2028
121.13
2029 onwards
2% p.a.
Table 13.1 RPS Brent forecast (2013 Q3)

A full oil assay on the recovered oil from Lancaster was undertaken by Hurricane and provided to RPS
for use in determining a price differential to Brent. This analysis was used to produce a Low, Base
and High forecast for Lancaster oil. The analysis shows that Lancaster is very similar to Brent but has
5% greater middle distillate yield and 5% less light ends. On this basis Lancaster would be worth
more than Brent but is let down by a number of poorer qualities. These are:
ECV2055
89
RPS Energy
Poorer cold properties;

Higher sulphur content (1.32%);
Heavier and more viscous residue which is loaded with sulphur (2.99% compared to Brent
with 0.87%).
It is our view that Lancaster would trade at a discount of Brent as shown in Table 13.2 below:
North Sea
Dated Brent
Lancaster
US$/stb MOD
US$/stb MOD
90-100
(2.3)
100-120
(2.9)
120-130
(2.4)
Table 13.2 Lancaster estimated price differentials to Brent

In addition to these discounts we have also assumed a new crude discount of $1/stb for the first
3 years of production. The water content of the produced oil wont be known until production startup
and as a consequence we have also included a wet crude discount of $1.5/stb to account for a
possible water content of >1%.
The Lancaster price forecast is shown in Table 13.3 below.
Year
Lancaster Base Case
(US$/stb, MOD)
2013
99.30
2014
93.95
2015
89.73
2016
90.71
2017
92.62
2018
94.57
2019
95.95
2020
97.98
2021
100.05
2022
103.16
2023
105.31
2024
107.50
2025
109.74
2026
112.02
114.35
2027
2028
117.23
2029
+2% p.a.
Table 13.3 Lancaster oil price forecast

13.3.2 Gas Price
Lancaster is assumed to have a GOR of 405 scf/stb. The small volumes of gas produced are
assumed to be sold on a spot price basis . A gas tariff of around $1/Mcf (2013 constant real) would
need to be deducted to cover transportation from WOSPS PLEM (pipeline end manifold) to the point
of sale.
13.3.3 Valuation Date
ECV2055
90
RPS Energy

st
The effective date of the valuation in this report is 1 October 2013. Mid-year post-tax cashflows have
st
been discounted to 1 October 2013 at a range of discount rates. An annual inflation rate of 2% has
been assumed and was applied to both costs and revenues.
13.3.4 Development Cases
As discussed earlier in this report, Lancaster will be developed in 2 phases. Phase 1 will comprise of
6 wells with first production in 2019. Depending on the results of Phase 1 a decision will be made as
to plan for Phase 2 of the development. If the Phase 1 drilling does not demonstrate oil below the
level of the conventional closure or the dynamic data does not support communication with the
planned horizontal producers then Phase 2 is represented by the Conventional Only Case. In this
situation no more drilling is assumed.
If however Phase 1 does demonstrate that the unconventional oil both exists and is connected to the
planned producers then Phase 2 will be expanded by the drilling of an additional 5 wells. In all cases
the development involves an FPSO. Should the project proceed into Phase 2 in the conventional plus
unconventional case then the FPSO will be taken off station in 2023/2024 to have Phase 2 topsides
added.
In all cases the FPSO is assumed to be leased for an initial 5 year basis. After 5 years it has then
been assumed that HEX will have the option of buying out the lease or entering a second lease
period. This has been assumed to be for 10 years. In the lease case, it has been assumed that after
15 years in total a third lease period will commence lasting for another 15 years. At the end of 30
years in either the lease option or the lease then buy out option, if the remaining production justified it,
the FPSO is assumed to be taken in shore for major refurbishment. We have assumed that this work
will extend the life of the vessel for another 15 years in total. In the lease then buy out option the cost
of refurbishment will be met be HEX or in the lease option a new 10 years lease with 5 year extension
has been assumed.
These cases are illustrated in the decision tree in Figure 13.1.
BASE CASE
CONVENTIONAL ONLY
Figure 13.1 Lancaster development options

13.3.5 Lease Costs
The estimated lease costs in each period are summarised below. The initial lease cost (years 1-5) is
based on 50% of the capital cost of the FPSO and a 10% return over 5 years. In the second lease
period the lease cost is based on the remaining 50% value of the FPSO and a 10% return over 10
years. In the Base Case the lease calculation also includes an estimate of the cost of the modification
required for Phase 2 of the development. For years 16-30 we have assumed that HEX will be able to
negotiate a substantial reduction of the annual lease costs on the basis that the FPSO owner has at
that point achieved their required 10% return. The level of this reduction is the subject to negotiation
and will depend on market conditions nearer the time however it is not uncommon for this to be
discounted by c.50%. The lease cost for the years 31-40 is based on the estimated costs of the major
refurbishment while the costs in years 41-45 are discounted by 50%.
ECV2055
91
RPS Energy
Annual Lease Costs ($MM, MOD)

Years 1-5
Years 6-15
Years 16-30
Years 31-40
Years 41-45
($MM)
($MM)
($MM)
($MM)
($MM)
144
113
56
80
40
Base Case
(lease option)
144
183
92
80
40
Base Case
(lease then buy out option)
144
Table 13.4 Summary of FPSO lease costs

13.3.6 Summary of Valuation
A summary of the valuation of Lancaster is shown in Table 13.5 below. We have presented the value
for the Conventional Only Case and the Base Case together with a lease only and lease/buy-out
sensitivity.
In all cases the Conventional Only 1C value is negative while the 2C and 3C values are strongly
positive. The economic threshold must lie between 23 and 61 MMbbls. In the Base Cases the 1C
values are also negative even though the 1C volume is c. 60 MMbbls. This is due to the development
capex associated with a full Phase 2 development of the field. The 2C and 3C case have a very
significant positive value. The sensitivity analysis for the Base Case shows the value to be insensitive
to the lease or buyout option based on current cost assumptions. No decision on this need be made
until nearer the end of the initial 5 year lease period for the FPSO, by which time it will be clearer if the
unconventional oil volumes are present.
Post Tax Net Present Value
1
2
Net Hurricane Share, (US$ / UK Million , MOD)

Discount
Rate:
0.00%
5.00%
7.50%

1C
-368
-382
-384
$
-230
-239
-240
2C
954
557
412
$
596
348
258
3C
2,963
1,690
1,277
$
1,852
1,056
798
Base Case (Lease option)

1C
401
115
19
$
251
72
12
2C
4,912
2,527
1,831
$
3,070
1,579
1,144
3C
15,662
6,112
4,056
$
9,789
3,820
2,535

1C
-181
-240
-268
$
-113
-150
-167
2C
5,285
2,621
1,860
$
3,303
1,638
1,163
3C
16,109
6,219
4,090
$
10,068
3,887
2,556
Note 1: Valuation is expressed on a standalone tax basis.

Note 2: US$ / UK conversion rate is 1.6.
10.00%
12.50%
15.00%
Economic
Limit
-383
-381
-376
2021
-240
-238
-235
2021
294
198
120
2027
184
124
75
2027
962
719
529
2037
601
449
331
2037
-55
-112
-155
2027
-34
-70
-97
2027
1,330
964
693
2043
831
602
433
2043
2,765
1,920
1,347
2061
1,728
1,200
842
2061
-290
-307
-318
2031
-181
-192
-199
2031
1,323
938
658
2047
827
586
411
2047
2,759
1,894
1,312
2063
1,724
1,184
820
2063
Table 13.5 Summary Lancaster Valuation of values

ECV2055
92
RPS Energy
Based on the economic analysis the final Contingent Resources, after applying the economic limit, are
summarised in Table 13.6 below.
Economic Limit
Gross Resources
1
(100% Basis)
(MMstb)
Nett Attributable
2
Resources
(MMstb)

1C
2021
15.77
15.77
2C
2027
52.23
52.23
3C
2037
118.32
118.32
Base Case (Lease option)

1C
2027
49.06
49.06
2C
2043
184.97
184.97
3C
2061
413.32
413.32

1C
2031
56.26
56.26
2C
2047
190.49
190.49
3C
2063
413.32
413.32
Note 1: After economic limit test.

Note 2: Company's working interest share in Gross Resources
Table 13.6 Summary of Contingent Resources

More detailed tables of production and cash flow (US$ and UK) can be found in Appendix B: of this
report.
ECV2055
93
RPS Energy
APPENDIX A:
LANCASTER WELL TEST ANALYSIS RESULTS - WELL
205/21A-4Z (DST2)
DST(1)
Pressure (psia)
DST(2)
Liquid rate
(STB/D)
Analysed
BU
Figure A.1 Pressure and production history Well205/21a-4z (DST1 &DST2)
r
sto
e
or
llb
e
lin
e:
g
a
n
s ki
Radial flow
stabilization line
:Dual porosity valley
Fault stabilization line
Constant pressure
boundary
Figure A.2 Log-log diagnostic plot of the analysed BU (DST2)
ECV2055
94
RPS Energy
Figure A.3 Log-log match of the analysed BU (DST2)
Figure A.4 Semi-log match of the analysed BU (DST2)
ECV2055
95
Liquid rate
(STB/D)
Pressure (psia)
RPS Energy
Figure A.5 Pressure history match of the analysed BU (DST2)
Selected Model
Model Option
Standard Model
Well
Slanted
Reservoir
Two porosity PSS
Boundary
Intersecting faults - Pi/N
Top/Bottom
No flow/No flow
Main Model Parameters
C
0.003 bbl/psi
Total Skin
34.3 -k.h, total
40000 md.ft
k, average
202 md
Pi
1881 psia
Model Parameters
Well & Wellbore parameters (Tested well)
C
0.003 bbl/psi
Skin
39.5 -Geometrical Skin
-5.21 -hw
170 ft
Zw
56 ft
Theta
30
Well Deviation
60
Reservoir & Boundary parameters
h
198 ft
Pi
1881 psia
ko_eq.h
40000 md.ft
ko_eq
202 md
kro
0.5 -kz/kr
1470 -Omega
0.18 -Lambda
4.00E-07 -L1 - No flow
300 ft
L2 - Constant P.
800 ft
N
4 --
Table A.1 Well test analysis result of well205/21a-4z the analysed BU (DST2)
ECV2055
96
RPS Energy
APPENDIX B:
DEVELOPMENT CASE INPUT SHEETS

CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Hurricane
UK
Lancaster Conventional
OIL
Resource Category 1C
Client
Country
Field
Phase
Hurricane
TECHNICAL RESOURCES
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
FORECAST FUTURE FIELD PRODUCTION (AFTER ECONOMIC CUT OFF)
Production Gross Field Resources (100% Basis) Gross Field Resources (100% Basis) Companies WI share of Gross Field
Days
Resources
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
Sub Total
Remaining
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
Total
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,146
13,702
9,318
6,340
4,314
2,934
1,995
1,358
924
628
427
291
198
135
91
62
42
29
20
13
9
6
4
3
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Initial
%
100.00%
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.35
5.01
3.40
2.31
1.57
1.07
0.73
0.50
0.34
0.23
0.16
0.11
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
23.01
23.01
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.35
12.37
15.77
18.083
19.66
20.73
21.46
21.96
22.29
22.52
22.68
22.79
22.86
22.91
22.94
22.96
22.98
22.99
23.00
23.00
23.00
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,146
13,702
9,318
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.35
5.01
3.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.77
0.00
15.77
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.35
12.37
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,146
13,702
9,318
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.35
5.01
3.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.77
0.00
15.77
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.35
12.37
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
Companies Net Entitlement

Resources
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,146
13,702
9,318
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.35
5.01
3.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.77
0.00
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.35
12.37
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
15.77
Notes :
Resources with 80% uptime
Table B.1 Lancaster 1C Contingent Resources (Conventional Only Case) Summary of Resources
and Forecast Future Production to 2063
ECV2055
97
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Client
Country
Field
Resource
Hurricane
UK
Lancaster
1C
Case
Conventional Only with Lease
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
Total
Oil
Gas Sales
Oil
Oil
Production
Equivalent Revenue
Mstb/d
15.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.1
13.7
9.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.8
MMscf/d
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.2
2.5
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
Mboe/d
16.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.0
14.1
9.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.3
US$MM
1537.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
705.6
491.4
340.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1537.2
Hurricane
Initial
%
100.00%
Corp. Tax Post-Tax CF Disc at

& SC
Cash Flow
10%
Gas
Revenue
Total
Revenue
Capex
Opex
Abandon
ment
Pre-Tax
Cash Flow
US$MM
33.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.4
10.3
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
1571.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
725.9
501.6
343.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
976.4
3.0
123.6
185.1
91.8
447.9
125.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
798.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
261.2
282.7
254.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
164.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
164.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
-368.2
-3.0
-123.6
-185.1
-91.8
-447.9
-125.0
464.7
218.9
88.6
-164.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.8
1571.0
976.4
798.8
164.1
-368.2
US$MM
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
-368.2
-3.0
-123.6
-185.1
-91.8
-447.9
-125.0
464.7
218.9
88.6
-164.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-368.2
US$MM
-383.4
-3.0
-115.1
-156.7
-70.6
-313.3
-79.5
268.7
115.0
42.3
-71.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-383.4
Table B.2 Lancaster 1C Contingent Resources (Conventional Only Case) Development Case
Inputs (US$) to 2063
ECV2055
98
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Client
Country
Field
Resource
Hurricane
UK
Lancaster
1C
Case
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
Total
Oil
Gas Sales
Oil
Oil
Production
Equivalent Revenue
Mstb/d
15.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.1
13.7
9.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.8
MMscf/d
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.2
2.5
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
Mboe/d
16.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.0
14.1
9.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.3
MM
960.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
441.0
307.1
212.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
960.8
Hurricane
Initial
%
100.00%

& SC
Cash Flow
10%
Gas
Revenue
Total
Revenue
Capex
Opex
Abandon
ment
Pre-Tax
Cash Flow
MM
21.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.7
6.4
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
981.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
453.7
313.5
214.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
610.2
1.9
77.3
115.7
57.3
280.0
78.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
499.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
163.3
176.7
159.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
102.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
102.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
-230.2
-1.9
-77.3
-115.7
-57.3
-280.0
-78.1
290.5
136.8
55.4
-102.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.1
981.9
610.2
499.2
102.6
-230.2
MM
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
-230.2
-1.9
-77.3
-115.7
-57.3
-280.0
-78.1
290.5
136.8
55.4
-102.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-230.2
MM
-239.6
-1.9
-71.9
-97.9
-44.1
-195.8
-49.7
167.9
71.9
26.5
-44.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-239.6
Inputs (UK) to 2063
ECV2055
99
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Hurricane
UK
OIL
Client
Country
Field
Phase
Hurricane
TECHNICAL RESOURCES
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Days
Resources
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
Sub Total
Remaining
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
Total
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
29,991
26,639
21,479
17,324
13,973
11,267
9,085
7,327
5,910
4,765
3,842
3,099
2,500
2,016
1,625
1,311
1,057
853
687
554
447
361
291
234
189
153
123
99
80
65
53
47
38
30
24
20
16
13
10
8
7
5
4
4
3
Initial
%
100.00%
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
9.75
7.84
6.32
5.10
4.12
3.32
2.67
2.16
1.74
1.40
1.13
0.91
0.74
0.59
0.48
0.39
0.31
0.25
0.20
0.16
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
61.23
61.23
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
20.70
28.54
34.860
39.96
44.08
47.40
50.07
52.23
53.98
55.38
56.51
57.42
58.16
58.75
59.23
59.62
59.93
60.18
60.38
60.54
60.68
60.78
60.87
60.94
60.99
61.04
61.07
61.10
61.13
61.15
61.16
61.18
61.19
61.20
61.20
61.21
61.22
61.22
61.22
61.22
61.23
61.23
61.23
61.23
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
29,991
26,639
21,479
17,324
13,973
11,267
9,085
7,327
5,910
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
9.75
7.84
6.32
5.10
4.12
3.32
2.67
2.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
52.23
0.00
52.23
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
20.70
28.54
34.86
39.96
44.08
47.40
50.07
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
29,991
26,639
21,479
17,324
13,973
11,267
9,085
7,327
5,910
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
9.75
7.84
6.32
5.10
4.12
3.32
2.67
2.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
52.23
0.00
52.23
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
20.70
28.54
34.86
39.96
44.08
47.40
50.07
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23

Resources
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
29,991
26,639
21,479
17,324
13,973
11,267
9,085
7,327
5,910
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
9.75
7.84
6.32
5.10
4.12
3.32
2.67
2.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
52.23
0.00
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
20.70
28.54
34.86
39.96
44.08
47.40
50.07
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
52.23
Notes :
ECV2055
100
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Client
Country
Field
Resource
Hurricane
UK
Lancaster
2C
Case
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
Total
Oil
Gas Sales
Oil
Oil
Production
Equivalent Revenue
Mstb/d
52.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
26.6
21.5
17.3
14.0
11.3
9.1
7.3
5.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
52.2
MMscf/d
11.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.1
7.8
5.7
4.0
2.7
1.6
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.5
Mboe/d
54.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.5
27.9
22.4
18.0
14.4
11.5
9.2
7.3
5.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
54.2
US$MM
5332.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1050.4
955.3
784.4
652.3
537.1
443.3
363.9
299.6
246.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5332.9
Hurricane
Initial
%
100.00%

& SC
Cash Flow
10%
Gas
Revenue
Total
Revenue
Capex
Opex
Abandon
ment
Pre-Tax
Cash Flow
US$MM
128.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.1
31.3
23.4
16.9
11.4
6.8
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
5461.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1086.5
986.7
807.8
669.2
548.4
450.1
366.9
299.6
246.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
976.4
3.0
123.6
185.1
91.8
447.9
125.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
2379.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
271.0
295.8
267.3
292.1
264.3
260.5
232.7
262.0
234.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
184.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
184.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
1920.9
-3.0
-123.6
-185.1
-91.8
-447.9
-125.0
815.5
690.9
540.4
377.1
284.2
189.6
134.2
37.6
12.5
-184.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
128.9
5461.8
976.4
2379.7
184.8
1920.9
US$MM
967.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
55.1
250.9
267.5
195.4
137.1
94.7
43.3
13.0
-59.0
-30.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
967.2
US$MM
953.6
-3.0
-123.6
-185.1
-91.8
-447.9
-125.0
815.5
635.7
289.5
109.5
88.8
52.5
39.5
-5.7
-0.4
-125.8
30.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
953.6
US$MM
294.3
-3.0
-115.1
-156.7
-70.6
-313.3
-79.5
471.4
334.1
138.3
47.6
35.1
18.9
12.9
-1.7
-0.1
-30.8
6.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
294.3
ECV2055
101
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Client
Country
Field
Resource
Hurricane
UK
Lancaster
2C
Case
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
Total
Oil
Gas Sales
Oil
Oil
Production
Equivalent Revenue
Mstb/d
52.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
26.6
21.5
17.3
14.0
11.3
9.1
7.3
5.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
52.2
MMscf/d
11.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.1
7.8
5.7
4.0
2.7
1.6
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.5
Mboe/d
54.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.5
27.9
22.4
18.0
14.4
11.5
9.2
7.3
5.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
54.2
MM
3333.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
656.5
597.1
490.2
407.7
335.7
277.1
227.4
187.3
154.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3333.1
Hurricane
Initial
%
100.00%

& SC
Cash Flow
10%
Gas
Revenue
Total
Revenue
Capex
Opex
Abandon
ment
Pre-Tax
Cash Flow
MM
80.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.6
19.6
14.6
10.5
7.1
4.3
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
3413.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
679.0
616.7
504.9
418.2
342.8
281.3
229.3
187.3
154.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
610.2
1.9
77.3
115.7
57.3
280.0
78.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
1487.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
169.3
184.9
167.1
182.6
165.2
162.8
145.4
163.7
146.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
115.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
115.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
1200.5
-1.9
-77.3
-115.7
-57.3
-280.0
-78.1
509.7
431.8
337.8
235.7
177.6
118.5
83.9
23.5
7.8
-115.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
80.6
3413.6
610.2
1487.3
115.5
1200.5
MM
604.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.5
156.8
167.2
122.1
85.7
59.2
27.1
8.1
-36.9
-19.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
604.5
MM
596.0
-1.9
-77.3
-115.7
-57.3
-280.0
-78.1
509.7
397.3
180.9
68.5
55.5
32.8
24.7
-3.5
-0.3
-78.6
19.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
596.0
MM
183.9
-1.9
-71.9
-97.9
-44.1
-195.8
-49.7
294.6
208.8
86.4
29.7
21.9
11.8
8.1
-1.0
-0.1
-19.3
4.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
183.9
Inputs (UK) to 2063
ECV2055
102
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Hurricane
UK
OIL
Client
Country
Field
Phase
Hurricane
TECHNICAL RESOURCES
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Days
Resources
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
Sub Total
Remaining
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
Total
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
28,394
25,043
22,083
19,476
17,177
15,148
13,357
11,781
10,390
9,162
8,079
7,126
6,285
5,542
4,887
4,310
3,801
3,352
2,956
2,607
2,299
2,028
1,788
1,577
1,391
1,226
1,091
1,017
896
790
696
614
542
478
421
372
328
289
255
225
198
Initial
%
100.00%
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
10.98
10.95
10.95
10.36
9.17
8.06
7.11
6.27
5.54
4.88
4.30
3.79
3.35
2.95
2.60
2.29
2.03
1.78
1.57
1.39
1.23
1.08
0.95
0.84
0.74
0.65
0.58
0.51
0.45
0.40
0.37
0.33
0.29
0.25
0.22
0.20
0.17
0.15
0.14
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.07
131.30
131.30
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
21.93
32.88
43.830
54.19
63.36
71.42
78.53
84.80
90.34
95.22
99.52
103.31
106.66
109.61
112.21
114.51
116.54
118.32
119.89
121.28
122.51
123.59
124.54
125.38
126.12
126.77
127.35
127.85
128.30
128.70
129.07
129.40
129.69
129.94
130.17
130.36
130.54
130.69
130.83
130.95
131.05
131.15
131.23
131.30
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
28,394
25,043
22,083
19,476
17,177
15,148
13,357
11,781
10,390
9,162
8,079
7,126
6,285
5,542
4,887
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
10.98
10.95
10.95
10.36
9.17
8.06
7.11
6.27
5.54
4.88
4.30
3.79
3.35
2.95
2.60
2.29
2.03
1.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
118.32
0.00
118.32
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
21.93
32.88
43.83
54.19
63.36
71.42
78.53
84.80
90.34
95.22
99.52
103.31
106.66
109.61
112.21
114.51
116.54
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
28,394
25,043
22,083
19,476
17,177
15,148
13,357
11,781
10,390
9,162
8,079
7,126
6,285
5,542
4,887
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
10.98
10.95
10.95
10.36
9.17
8.06
7.11
6.27
5.54
4.88
4.30
3.79
3.35
2.95
2.60
2.29
2.03
1.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
118.32
0.00
118.32
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
21.93
32.88
43.83
54.19
63.36
71.42
78.53
84.80
90.34
95.22
99.52
103.31
106.66
109.61
112.21
114.51
116.54
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32

Resources
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
28,394
25,043
22,083
19,476
17,177
15,148
13,357
11,781
10,390
9,162
8,079
7,126
6,285
5,542
4,887
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
10.98
10.95
10.95
10.36
9.17
8.06
7.11
6.27
5.54
4.88
4.30
3.79
3.35
2.95
2.60
2.29
2.03
1.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
118.32
0.00
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
21.93
32.88
43.83
54.19
63.36
71.42
78.53
84.80
90.34
95.22
99.52
103.31
106.66
109.61
112.21
114.51
116.54
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
118.32
Notes :
ECV2055
103
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Client
Country
Field
Resource
Hurricane
UK
Lancaster
3C
Case
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
Total
Oil
Gas Sales
Oil
Oil
Production
Equivalent Revenue
Mstb/d
118.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
28.4
25.0
22.1
19.5
17.2
15.1
13.4
11.8
10.4
9.2
8.1
7.1
6.3
5.5
4.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
118.3
MMscf/d
28.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
8.5
7.1
5.9
4.9
4.0
3.1
2.4
1.8
1.2
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.0
Mboe/d
123.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
29.8
26.2
23.1
20.3
17.8
15.7
13.8
12.1
10.6
9.3
8.1
7.1
6.3
5.5
4.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
123.0
US$MM
13052.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1050.7
1075.8
1095.5
1129.6
1091.4
985.3
884.5
796.4
717.0
649.9
583.3
525.1
472.7
426.6
382.9
344.6
310.2
280.0
251.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13052.9
Hurricane
Initial
%
100.00%

& SC
Cash Flow
10%
Gas
Revenue
Total
Revenue
Capex
Opex
Abandon
ment
Pre-Tax
Cash Flow
US$MM
329.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.1
36.8
37.6
38.4
36.3
31.1
26.4
22.2
18.3
14.8
11.6
8.7
6.0
3.6
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
13382.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1086.8
1112.7
1133.1
1168.0
1127.7
1016.5
911.0
818.6
735.3
664.7
594.9
533.8
478.7
430.2
384.3
344.6
310.2
280.0
251.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
976.4
3.0
123.6
185.1
91.8
447.9
125.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
4960.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
271.0
299.2
276.1
305.4
279.7
275.6
247.2
275.7
246.9
286.0
256.6
288.8
249.5
283.2
252.0
230.7
198.4
235.6
202.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
225.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
225.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
7220.6
-3.0
-123.6
-185.1
-91.8
-447.9
-125.0
815.8
813.5
857.0
862.6
848.0
740.9
663.8
542.8
488.4
378.7
338.3
245.0
229.2
147.1
132.3
114.0
111.8
44.4
48.7
-225.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
329.4
13382.3
976.4
4960.0
225.3
7220.6
US$MM
4257.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
106.0
407.2
533.7
528.8
481.5
427.5
361.6
314.0
257.5
218.1
171.2
145.4
108.2
85.1
74.5
69.8
41.4
29.3
-65.0
-37.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4257.9
US$MM
2962.7
-3.0
-123.6
-185.1
-91.8
-447.9
-125.0
815.8
707.5
449.8
328.9
319.2
259.4
236.3
181.3
174.3
121.3
120.2
73.8
83.9
38.9
47.2
39.5
42.0
2.9
19.4
-160.3
37.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2962.7
US$MM
961.9
-3.0
-115.1
-156.7
-70.6
-313.3
-79.5
471.6
371.8
214.9
142.9
126.0
93.1
77.1
53.8
47.0
29.7
26.8
15.0
15.4
6.5
7.2
5.5
5.3
0.3
2.0
-15.1
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
961.9
ECV2055
104
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Client
Country
Field
Resource
Hurricane
UK
Lancaster
3C
Case
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
Total
Oil
Gas Sales
Oil
Oil
Production
Equivalent Revenue
Mstb/d
118.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
28.4
25.0
22.1
19.5
17.2
15.1
13.4
11.8
10.4
9.2
8.1
7.1
6.3
5.5
4.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
118.3
MMscf/d
28.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
8.5
7.1
5.9
4.9
4.0
3.1
2.4
1.8
1.2
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.0
Mboe/d
123.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
29.8
26.2
23.1
20.3
17.8
15.7
13.8
12.1
10.6
9.3
8.1
7.1
6.3
5.5
4.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
123.0
MM
8158.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
656.7
672.4
684.7
706.0
682.1
615.8
552.8
497.7
448.1
406.2
364.6
328.2
295.4
266.6
239.3
215.4
193.9
175.0
157.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8158.1
Hurricane
Initial
%
100.00%

& SC
Cash Flow
10%
Gas
Revenue
Total
Revenue
Capex
Opex
Abandon
ment
Pre-Tax
Cash Flow
MM
205.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.6
23.0
23.5
24.0
22.7
19.4
16.5
13.9
11.4
9.2
7.2
5.4
3.8
2.3
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
8364.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
679.3
695.4
708.2
730.0
704.8
635.3
569.3
511.6
459.5
415.4
371.8
333.6
299.2
268.9
240.2
215.4
193.9
175.0
157.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
610.2
1.9
77.3
115.7
57.3
280.0
78.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
3100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
169.4
187.0
172.6
190.9
174.8
172.2
154.5
172.3
154.3
178.7
160.4
180.5
155.9
177.0
157.5
144.2
124.0
147.3
126.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
140.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
140.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
4512.9
-1.9
-77.3
-115.7
-57.3
-280.0
-78.1
509.9
508.4
535.6
539.1
530.0
463.1
414.9
339.3
305.2
236.7
211.4
153.1
143.3
91.9
82.7
71.2
69.9
27.7
30.4
-140.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
205.9
8364.0
610.2
3100.0
140.8
4512.9
MM
2661.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
66.2
254.5
333.5
330.5
300.9
267.2
226.0
196.3
160.9
136.3
107.0
90.9
67.6
53.2
46.5
43.6
25.9
18.3
-40.6
-23.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2661.2
MM
1851.7
-1.9
-77.3
-115.7
-57.3
-280.0
-78.1
509.9
442.2
281.1
205.6
199.5
162.1
147.7
113.3
108.9
75.8
75.1
46.1
52.4
24.3
29.5
24.7
26.3
1.8
12.1
-100.2
23.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
601.2
-1.9
-71.9
-97.9
-44.1
-195.8
-49.7
294.8
232.4
134.3
89.3
78.8
58.2
48.2
33.6
29.4
18.6
16.7
9.4
9.7
4.1
4.5
3.4
3.3
0.2
1.3
-9.5
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1851.7
Inputs (UK) to 2063
ECV2055
105
601.2
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Hurricane
UK
Lancaster Conventional + Unconventional
OIL
Client
Country
Field
Phase
Hurricane
TECHNICAL RESOURCES
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Days
Resources
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
Sub Total
Remaining
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
Total
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
21,197
17,500
18,812
15,688
9,278
14,895
15,710
12,027
9,207
7,046
5,392
4,128
3,160
2,418
1,850
1,417
1,084
830
635
486
372
285
218
167
128
98
75
57
44
34
20
17
17
13
10
8
6
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.74
6.41
6.87
5.73
3.39
5.45
5.73
4.39
3.36
2.58
1.97
1.51
1.15
0.89
0.68
0.52
0.40
0.30
0.23
0.18
0.14
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
60.03
60.03
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.74
14.14
21.01
26.735
30.12
35.57
41.31
45.70
49.06
51.64
53.60
55.11
56.26
57.15
57.82
58.34
58.74
59.04
59.27
59.45
59.59
59.69
59.77
59.83
59.88
59.91
59.94
59.96
59.98
59.99
60.00
60.00
60.01
60.01
60.02
60.02
60.02
60.02
60.03
60.03
60.03
60.03
60.03
60.03
60.03
Initial
%
100.00%
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
21,197
17,500
18,812
15,688
9,278
14,895
15,710
12,027
9,207
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.74
6.41
6.87
5.73
3.39
5.45
5.73
4.39
3.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
49.06
0.00
49.06
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.74
14.14
21.01
26.73
30.12
35.57
41.31
45.70
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
21,197
17,500
18,812
15,688
9,278
14,895
15,710
12,027
9,207
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.74
6.41
6.87
5.73
3.39
5.45
5.73
4.39
3.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
49.06
0.00
49.06
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.74
14.14
21.01
26.73
30.12
35.57
41.31
45.70
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06

Resources
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
21,197
17,500
18,812
15,688
9,278
14,895
15,710
12,027
9,207
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.74
6.41
6.87
5.73
3.39
5.45
5.73
4.39
3.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
49.06
0.00
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.74
14.14
21.01
26.73
30.12
35.57
41.31
45.70
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
49.06
Notes :
Table B.10 Lancaster 1C Contingent Resources (Base Case, no buyout) Summary of

Resources and Forecast Future Production to 2063
ECV2055
106
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
Client
Country
Field
Resource
Hurricane
UK
Lancaster
1C
Case
Base Case with Lease option
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
Total
COMPANY INTERESTS
Oil
Gas Sales
Oil
Oil
Production
Equivalent Revenue
Mstb/d
49.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.2
17.5
18.8
15.7
9.3
14.9
15.7
12.0
9.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
49.1
MMscf/d
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
4.1
4.6
3.4
0.8
3.0
3.4
1.9
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
Mboe/d
50.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.1
18.2
19.6
16.2
9.4
15.4
16.3
12.3
9.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.7
US$MM
5095.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
742.4
627.6
687.0
590.7
356.6
586.1
629.3
491.8
384.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5095.7
Hurricane
Initial
%
100.00%

& SC
Cash Flow
10%
Gas
Revenue
Total
Revenue
Capex
Opex
Abandon
ment
Pre-Tax
Cash Flow
US$MM
114.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.0
16.5
19.0
14.1
3.2
13.2
14.9
8.5
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
5210.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
764.4
644.0
706.0
604.8
359.9
599.3
644.2
500.3
387.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
1735.8
3.0
123.6
185.1
91.8
447.9
125.0
0.0
125.2
252.6
57.9
295.2
28.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
2652.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
262.3
286.6
264.6
290.4
259.3
334.5
310.1
337.3
307.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
313.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
313.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
508.1
-3.0
-123.6
-185.1
-91.8
-447.9
-125.0
502.1
232.2
188.8
256.5
-194.7
236.2
334.1
162.9
79.9
-313.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
114.8
5210.5
1735.8
2652.9
313.7
508.1
US$MM
106.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
75.4
105.0
66.7
-88.0
-52.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
106.8
US$MM
401.3
-3.0
-123.6
-185.1
-91.8
-447.9
-125.0
502.1
232.2
188.8
256.5
-194.7
236.2
258.7
57.9
13.2
-225.6
52.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
401.3
US$MM
-54.8
-3.0
-115.1
-156.7
-70.6
-313.3
-79.5
290.3
122.0
90.2
111.4
-76.9
84.8
84.4
17.2
3.6
-55.3
11.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-54.8
Table B.11 Lancaster 1C Contingent Resources (Base Case, no buyout) Development Case
ECV2055
107
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
Client
Country
Field
Resource
Hurricane
UK
Lancaster
1C
Case
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
Total
COMPANY INTERESTS
Oil
Gas Sales
Oil
Oil
Production
Equivalent Revenue
Mstb/d
49.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.2
17.5
18.8
15.7
9.3
14.9
15.7
12.0
9.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
49.1
MMscf/d
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
4.1
4.6
3.4
0.8
3.0
3.4
1.9
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
Mboe/d
50.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.1
18.2
19.6
16.2
9.4
15.4
16.3
12.3
9.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.7
MM
3184.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
464.0
392.2
429.4
369.2
222.9
366.3
393.3
307.4
240.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3184.8
Hurricane
Initial
%
100.00%

& SC
Cash Flow
10%
Gas
Revenue
Total
Revenue
Capex
Opex
Abandon
ment
Pre-Tax
Cash Flow
MM
71.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.8
10.3
11.9
8.8
2.0
8.3
9.3
5.3
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
3256.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
477.8
402.5
441.2
378.0
224.9
374.6
402.6
312.7
242.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
1084.9
1.9
77.3
115.7
57.3
280.0
78.1
0.0
78.2
157.8
36.2
184.5
17.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
1658.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
163.9
179.1
165.4
181.5
162.1
209.1
193.8
210.8
192.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
196.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
196.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
317.6
-1.9
-77.3
-115.7
-57.3
-280.0
-78.1
313.8
145.1
118.0
160.3
-121.7
147.6
208.8
101.8
50.0
-196.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
71.8
3256.6
1084.9
1658.1
196.0
317.6
MM
66.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
47.1
65.6
41.7
-55.0
-32.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
66.7
MM
250.8
-1.9
-77.3
-115.7
-57.3
-280.0
-78.1
313.8
145.1
118.0
160.3
-121.7
147.6
161.7
36.2
8.3
-141.0
32.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
250.8
MM
-34.2
-1.9
-71.9
-97.9
-44.1
-195.8
-49.7
181.4
76.3
56.4
69.6
-48.0
53.0
52.8
10.7
2.2
-34.6
7.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-34.2
Inputs (UK) to 2063
ECV2055
108
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Hurricane
UK
OIL
Client
Country
Field
Phase
Hurricane
TECHNICAL RESOURCES
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Days
Resources
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
Sub Total
Remaining
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
Total
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
29,998
30,000
30,000
22,438
33,874
40,722
36,252
32,272
28,725
25,567
22,760
20,261
18,035
16,052
14,290
12,721
11,323
10,078
8,972
7,987
7,109
6,327
5,633
5,014
4,463
3,973
3,536
3,148
2,802
1,892
1,759
2,100
1,861
1,650
1,464
1,299
1,153
1,024
910
808
718
638
567
504
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
10.98
10.95
10.95
8.19
12.40
14.86
13.23
11.78
10.51
9.33
8.31
7.40
6.60
5.86
5.22
4.64
4.14
3.68
3.27
2.92
2.60
2.31
2.06
1.83
1.63
1.45
1.29
1.15
1.03
0.69
0.64
0.77
0.68
0.60
0.53
0.47
0.42
0.37
0.33
0.29
0.26
0.23
0.21
0.18
198.22
198.22
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
21.93
32.88
43.829
52.02
64.42
79.28
92.51
104.29
114.80
124.14
132.44
139.84
146.44
152.30
157.51
162.16
166.30
169.98
173.26
176.17
178.77
181.08
183.14
184.97
186.60
188.05
189.34
190.49
191.52
192.21
192.85
193.62
194.30
194.90
195.43
195.91
196.33
196.70
197.04
197.33
197.59
197.83
198.03
198.22
Initial
%
100.00%
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
29,998
30,000
30,000
22,438
33,874
40,722
36,252
32,272
28,725
25,567
22,760
20,261
18,035
16,052
14,290
12,721
11,323
10,078
8,972
7,987
7,109
6,327
5,633
5,014
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
10.98
10.95
10.95
8.19
12.40
14.86
13.23
11.78
10.51
9.33
8.31
7.40
6.60
5.86
5.22
4.64
4.14
3.68
3.27
2.92
2.60
2.31
2.06
1.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
184.97
0.00
184.97
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
21.93
32.88
43.83
52.02
64.42
79.28
92.51
104.29
114.80
124.14
132.44
139.84
146.44
152.30
157.51
162.16
166.30
169.98
173.26
176.17
178.77
181.08
183.14
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
29,998
30,000
30,000
22,438
33,874
40,722
36,252
32,272
28,725
25,567
22,760
20,261
18,035
16,052
14,290
12,721
11,323
10,078
8,972
7,987
7,109
6,327
5,633
5,014
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
10.98
10.95
10.95
8.19
12.40
14.86
13.23
11.78
10.51
9.33
8.31
7.40
6.60
5.86
5.22
4.64
4.14
3.68
3.27
2.92
2.60
2.31
2.06
1.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
184.97
0.00
184.97
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
21.93
32.88
43.83
52.02
64.42
79.28
92.51
104.29
114.80
124.14
132.44
139.84
146.44
152.30
157.51
162.16
166.30
169.98
173.26
176.17
178.77
181.08
183.14
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97

Resources
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
29,998
30,000
30,000
22,438
33,874
40,722
36,252
32,272
28,725
25,567
22,760
20,261
18,035
16,052
14,290
12,721
11,323
10,078
8,972
7,987
7,109
6,327
5,633
5,014
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
10.98
10.95
10.95
8.19
12.40
14.86
13.23
11.78
10.51
9.33
8.31
7.40
6.60
5.86
5.22
4.64
4.14
3.68
3.27
2.92
2.60
2.31
2.06
1.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
184.97
0.00
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
21.93
32.88
43.83
52.02
64.42
79.28
92.51
104.29
114.80
124.14
132.44
139.84
146.44
152.30
157.51
162.16
166.30
169.98
173.26
176.17
178.77
181.08
183.14
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
184.97
Notes :
Table B.13 Lancaster 2C Contingent Resources (Base Case, no buyout) Summary of Resources
ECV2055
109
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Client
Country
Field
Resource
Hurricane
UK
Lancaster
2C
Case
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
Total
Oil
Gas Sales
Oil
Oil
Production
Equivalent Revenue
Mstb/d
185.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
22.4
33.9
40.7
36.3
32.3
28.7
25.6
22.8
20.3
18.0
16.1
14.3
12.7
11.3
10.1
9.0
8.0
7.1
6.3
5.6
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
185.0
MMscf/d
48.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
9.1
9.2
9.2
6.1
10.7
13.5
11.7
10.1
8.6
7.4
6.2
5.2
4.3
3.5
2.8
2.2
1.6
1.1
0.6
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
48.3
Mboe/d
193.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
23.5
35.7
43.0
38.2
34.0
30.2
26.8
23.8
21.1
18.8
16.6
14.8
13.1
11.6
10.3
9.1
8.0
7.1
6.3
5.6
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
193.0
US$MM
21554.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1050.7
1075.8
1095.5
1129.6
862.5
1332.8
1631.2
1482.3
1347.0
1232.5
1116.6
1014.5
921.8
839.7
760.7
691.1
627.9
572.0
518.1
470.7
427.7
389.5
352.9
320.6
291.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21554.8
Hurricane
Initial
%
100.00%

& SC
Cash Flow
10%
Gas
Revenue
Total
Revenue
Capex
Opex
Abandon
ment
Pre-Tax
Cash Flow
US$MM
600.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.1
36.8
37.6
38.4
26.0
46.7
60.0
53.1
46.6
40.7
35.4
30.6
26.1
22.0
18.2
14.8
11.7
8.8
6.1
3.7
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
22155.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1086.8
1112.6
1133.1
1168.0
888.5
1379.5
1691.1
1535.4
1393.5
1273.2
1151.9
1045.1
947.8
861.7
778.9
706.0
639.6
580.7
524.2
474.4
429.0
389.5
352.9
320.6
291.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
1735.8
3.0
123.6
185.1
91.8
447.9
125.0
0.0
125.2
252.6
57.9
295.2
28.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
7572.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
271.0
299.2
276.1
305.4
273.4
355.3
338.0
364.9
334.4
363.4
332.5
363.3
331.9
364.5
332.4
275.8
242.9
279.2
245.3
283.3
248.4
288.4
252.4
294.4
257.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
430.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
430.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
12416.2
-3.0
-123.6
-185.1
-91.8
-447.9
-125.0
815.8
688.2
604.4
804.7
319.9
995.7
1353.1
1170.5
1059.1
909.8
819.5
681.9
616.0
497.1
446.5
430.1
396.7
301.6
279.0
191.1
180.7
101.2
100.4
26.2
34.0
-430.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
600.6
22155.4
1735.8
7572.9
430.6
12416.2
US$MM
7503.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
54.1
276.9
457.5
298.5
477.7
765.1
763.5
679.7
594.9
526.7
451.2
395.5
332.8
287.3
270.1
252.9
206.6
177.6
136.6
114.2
79.2
62.4
31.6
19.5
-136.5
-71.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7503.8
US$MM
4912.4
-3.0
-123.6
-185.1
-91.8
-447.9
-125.0
815.8
634.0
327.5
347.2
21.4
518.0
588.1
407.1
379.4
314.9
292.7
230.7
220.5
164.3
159.2
160.1
143.8
94.9
101.3
54.4
66.5
22.0
38.0
-5.4
14.6
-294.1
71.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4912.4
US$MM
1330.0
-3.0
-115.1
-156.7
-70.6
-313.3
-79.5
471.6
333.2
156.5
150.8
8.4
185.9
191.9
120.8
102.3
77.2
65.2
46.7
40.6
27.5
24.2
22.2
18.1
10.9
10.5
5.1
5.7
1.7
2.7
-0.3
0.9
-15.7
3.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1330.0
ECV2055
110
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Client
Country
Field
Resource
Hurricane
UK
Lancaster
2C
Case
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
Total
Oil
Gas Sales
Oil
Oil
Production
Equivalent Revenue
Mstb/d
185.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
22.4
33.9
40.7
36.3
32.3
28.7
25.6
22.8
20.3
18.0
16.1
14.3
12.7
11.3
10.1
9.0
8.0
7.1
6.3
5.6
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
185.0
MMscf/d
48.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
9.1
9.2
9.2
6.1
10.7
13.5
11.7
10.1
8.6
7.4
6.2
5.2
4.3
3.5
2.8
2.2
1.6
1.1
0.6
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
48.3
Mboe/d
193.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
23.5
35.7
43.0
38.2
34.0
30.2
26.8
23.8
21.1
18.8
16.6
14.8
13.1
11.6
10.3
9.1
8.0
7.1
6.3
5.6
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
193.0
MM
13471.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
656.7
672.3
684.7
706.0
539.1
833.0
1019.5
926.4
841.9
770.3
697.9
634.1
576.1
524.8
475.4
432.0
392.5
357.5
323.8
294.2
267.3
243.5
220.5
200.4
182.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13471.8
Hurricane
Initial
%
100.00%

& SC
Cash Flow
10%
Gas
Revenue
Total
Revenue
Capex
Opex
Abandon
ment
Pre-Tax
Cash Flow
MM
375.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.6
23.0
23.5
24.0
16.3
29.2
37.5
33.2
29.1
25.4
22.1
19.1
16.3
13.7
11.4
9.3
7.3
5.5
3.8
2.3
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
13847.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
679.3
695.4
708.2
730.0
555.3
862.2
1056.9
959.6
871.0
795.7
720.0
653.2
592.4
538.5
486.8
441.2
399.7
363.0
327.7
296.5
268.2
243.5
220.5
200.4
182.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
1084.9
1.9
77.3
115.7
57.3
280.0
78.1
0.0
78.2
157.8
36.2
184.5
17.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
4733.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
169.4
187.0
172.6
190.9
170.9
222.0
211.2
228.0
209.0
227.1
207.8
227.0
207.4
227.8
207.7
172.4
151.8
174.5
153.3
177.1
155.2
180.2
157.8
184.0
160.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
269.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
269.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
7760.1
-1.9
-77.3
-115.7
-57.3
-280.0
-78.1
509.9
430.1
377.8
502.9
199.9
622.3
845.7
731.6
661.9
568.6
512.2
426.2
385.0
310.7
279.1
268.8
247.9
188.5
174.4
119.4
112.9
63.2
62.8
16.4
21.3
-269.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
375.3
13847.1
1084.9
4733.0
269.1
7760.1
MM
4689.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.8
173.1
286.0
186.6
298.5
478.2
477.2
424.8
371.8
329.2
282.0
247.2
208.0
179.6
168.8
158.0
129.1
111.0
85.4
71.4
49.5
39.0
19.7
12.2
-85.3
-44.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4689.9
MM
3070.2
-1.9
-77.3
-115.7
-57.3
-280.0
-78.1
509.9
396.3
204.7
217.0
13.3
323.8
367.5
254.4
237.1
196.8
183.0
144.2
137.8
102.7
99.5
100.0
89.9
59.3
63.3
34.0
41.6
13.8
23.8
-3.4
9.1
-183.8
44.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3070.2
MM
831.3
-1.9
-71.9
-97.9
-44.1
-195.8
-49.7
294.8
208.2
97.8
94.2
5.3
116.2
119.9
75.5
64.0
48.2
40.8
29.2
25.4
17.2
15.1
13.8
11.3
6.8
6.6
3.2
3.6
1.1
1.7
-0.2
0.5
-9.8
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
831.3
Inputs (UK) to 2063
ECV2055
111
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Hurricane
UK
OIL
Client
Country
Field
Phase
Hurricane
TECHNICAL RESOURCES
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Days
Resources
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
Sub Total
Remaining
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
Total
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
22,438
45,082
60,000
60,000
58,926
55,197
51,576
48,198
45,041
42,087
39,327
36,751
34,344
32,091
29,986
28,022
26,187
24,469
22,864
21,367
19,967
18,658
17,434
16,292
15,225
14,227
10,027
9,636
12,021
11,201
10,438
9,730
9,072
8,458
7,887
7,356
6,862
6,401
5,972
5,573
5,201
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
10.98
10.95
10.95
8.19
16.50
21.90
21.90
21.51
20.20
18.83
17.59
16.44
15.40
14.35
13.41
12.54
11.75
10.94
10.23
9.56
8.96
8.35
7.80
7.29
6.83
6.36
5.95
5.56
5.21
3.66
3.52
4.39
4.10
3.81
3.55
3.31
3.10
2.88
2.69
2.50
2.34
2.18
2.03
1.90
413.32
413.32
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
21.93
32.88
43.830
52.02
68.52
90.42
112.32
133.83
154.03
172.86
190.45
206.89
222.29
236.65
250.06
262.59
274.34
285.29
295.51
305.07
314.03
322.37
330.17
337.46
344.29
350.65
356.60
362.16
367.36
371.02
374.54
378.93
383.03
386.84
390.39
393.70
396.80
399.67
402.36
404.86
407.21
409.39
411.42
413.32
Initial
%
100.00%
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
22,438
45,082
60,000
60,000
58,926
55,197
51,576
48,198
45,041
42,087
39,327
36,751
34,344
32,091
29,986
28,022
26,187
24,469
22,864
21,367
19,967
18,658
17,434
16,292
15,225
14,227
10,027
9,636
12,021
11,201
10,438
9,730
9,072
8,458
7,887
7,356
6,862
6,401
5,972
5,573
5,201
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
10.98
10.95
10.95
8.19
16.50
21.90
21.90
21.51
20.20
18.83
17.59
16.44
15.40
14.35
13.41
12.54
11.75
10.94
10.23
9.56
8.96
8.35
7.80
7.29
6.83
6.36
5.95
5.56
5.21
3.66
3.52
4.39
4.10
3.81
3.55
3.31
3.10
2.88
2.69
2.50
2.34
2.18
2.03
1.90
413.32
0.00
413.32
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
21.93
32.88
43.83
52.02
68.52
90.42
112.32
133.83
154.03
172.86
190.45
206.89
222.29
236.65
250.06
262.59
274.34
285.29
295.51
305.07
314.03
322.37
330.17
337.46
344.29
350.65
356.60
362.16
367.36
371.02
374.54
378.93
383.03
386.84
390.39
393.70
396.80
399.67
402.36
404.86
407.21
409.39
411.42
413.32
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
22,438
45,082
60,000
60,000
58,926
55,197
51,576
48,198
45,041
42,087
39,327
36,751
34,344
32,091
29,986
28,022
26,187
24,469
22,864
21,367
19,967
18,658
17,434
16,292
15,225
14,227
10,027
9,636
12,021
11,201
10,438
9,730
9,072
8,458
7,887
7,356
6,862
6,401
5,972
5,573
5,201
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
10.98
10.95
10.95
8.19
16.50
21.90
21.90
21.51
20.20
18.83
17.59
16.44
15.40
14.35
13.41
12.54
11.75
10.94
10.23
9.56
8.96
8.35
7.80
7.29
6.83
6.36
5.95
5.56
5.21
3.66
3.52
4.39
4.10
3.81
3.55
3.31
3.10
2.88
2.69
2.50
2.34
2.18
2.03
1.90
413.32
0.00
413.32
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
21.93
32.88
43.83
52.02
68.52
90.42
112.32
133.83
154.03
172.86
190.45
206.89
222.29
236.65
250.06
262.59
274.34
285.29
295.51
305.07
314.03
322.37
330.17
337.46
344.29
350.65
356.60
362.16
367.36
371.02
374.54
378.93
383.03
386.84
390.39
393.70
396.80
399.67
402.36
404.86
407.21
409.39
411.42
413.32

Resources
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
22,438
45,082
60,000
60,000
58,926
55,197
51,576
48,198
45,041
42,087
39,327
36,751
34,344
32,091
29,986
28,022
26,187
24,469
22,864
21,367
19,967
18,658
17,434
16,292
15,225
14,227
10,027
9,636
12,021
11,201
10,438
9,730
9,072
8,458
7,887
7,356
6,862
6,401
5,972
5,573
5,201
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
10.98
10.95
10.95
8.19
16.50
21.90
21.90
21.51
20.20
18.83
17.59
16.44
15.40
14.35
13.41
12.54
11.75
10.94
10.23
9.56
8.96
8.35
7.80
7.29
6.83
6.36
5.95
5.56
5.21
3.66
3.52
4.39
4.10
3.81
3.55
3.31
3.10
2.88
2.69
2.50
2.34
2.18
2.03
1.90
413.32
0.00
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
21.93
32.88
43.83
52.02
68.52
90.42
112.32
133.83
154.03
172.86
190.45
206.89
222.29
236.65
250.06
262.59
274.34
285.29
295.51
305.07
314.03
322.37
330.17
337.46
344.29
350.65
356.60
362.16
367.36
371.02
374.54
378.93
383.03
386.84
390.39
393.70
396.80
399.67
402.36
404.86
407.21
409.39
411.42
413.32
413.32
Notes :
Table B.16 Lancaster 3C Contingent Resources (Base Case, no buyout) Summary of Resources
ECV2055
112
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Client
Country
Field
Resource
Hurricane
UK
Lancaster
3C
Case
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
Total
Oil
Gas Sales
Oil
Oil
Production
Equivalent Revenue
Mstb/d
413.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
22.4
45.1
60.0
60.0
58.9
55.2
51.6
48.2
45.0
42.1
39.3
36.8
34.3
32.1
30.0
28.0
26.2
24.5
22.9
21.4
20.0
18.7
17.4
16.3
15.2
14.2
10.0
9.6
12.0
11.2
10.4
9.7
9.1
8.5
7.9
7.4
6.9
6.4
6.0
5.6
5.2
0.0
0.0
413.3
MMscf/d
118.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
6.1
15.3
21.3
21.3
20.9
19.4
17.9
16.5
15.2
14.0
12.9
11.9
10.9
10.0
9.1
8.3
7.6
6.9
6.3
5.7
5.1
4.6
4.1
3.6
3.2
2.8
1.1
0.9
1.9
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
118.5
Mboe/d
433.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
23.5
47.6
63.6
63.6
62.4
58.4
54.6
51.0
47.6
44.4
41.5
38.7
36.2
33.8
31.5
29.4
27.5
25.6
23.9
22.3
20.8
19.4
18.1
16.9
15.8
14.7
10.2
9.8
12.3
11.5
10.6
9.9
9.2
8.5
7.9
7.4
6.9
6.4
6.0
5.6
5.2
0.0
0.0
433.1
US$MM
55847.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1050.7
1075.8
1095.5
1129.6
862.5
1773.8
2403.3
2453.3
2459.5
2368.2
2252.5
2148.4
2049.1
1959.6
1863.7
1777.5
1695.3
1621.1
1541.7
1470.3
1402.3
1340.9
1275.1
1216.0
1159.7
1108.9
1054.5
1005.6
958.9
916.9
657.6
644.9
821.0
782.7
742.3
706.0
671.7
640.8
608.0
578.7
550.8
525.7
499.0
475.1
452.4
0.0
0.0
55847.0
Hurricane
Initial
%
100.00%

& SC
Cash Flow
10%
Gas
Revenue
Total
Revenue
Capex
Opex
Abandon
ment
Pre-Tax
Cash Flow
US$MM
1650.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.1
36.8
37.6
38.4
26.0
66.5
94.7
96.8
96.5
91.3
86.0
81.3
76.3
71.7
67.3
63.3
59.1
55.2
51.5
48.1
44.6
41.3
38.2
35.3
32.3
29.5
26.8
24.3
10.9
19.4
7.6
6.6
13.9
11.7
9.5
7.4
5.4
3.5
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
57497.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1086.8
1112.7
1133.1
1168.0
888.5
1840.3
2498.0
2550.2
2556.0
2459.5
2338.5
2229.7
2125.4
2031.3
1931.0
1840.8
1754.4
1676.4
1593.2
1518.5
1446.9
1382.2
1313.3
1251.3
1192.0
1138.4
1081.3
1029.9
969.8
936.2
665.2
651.5
834.9
794.4
751.8
713.5
677.1
644.3
609.6
578.7
550.8
525.7
499.0
475.1
452.4
0.0
0.0
US$MM
1735.8
3.0
123.6
185.1
91.8
447.9
125.0
0.0
125.2
252.6
57.9
295.2
28.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
14349.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
271.0
299.2
276.1
305.4
273.4
367.5
359.4
391.8
365.3
394.7
363.8
394.5
362.9
395.4
362.7
305.7
272.2
308.0
273.4
310.8
275.1
314.4
277.4
318.4
280.3
323.2
283.7
328.5
286.6
334.5
274.3
323.9
285.9
336.7
291.1
344.2
296.9
352.2
303.2
360.9
270.1
330.5
277.7
340.6
285.8
0.0
0.0
US$MM
639.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
639.8
0.0
US$MM
40771.9
-3.0
-123.6
-185.1
-91.8
-447.9
-125.0
815.8
688.2
604.4
804.7
319.9
1444.2
2138.6
2158.3
2190.7
2064.8
1974.7
1835.1
1762.5
1635.9
1568.2
1535.0
1482.1
1368.4
1319.9
1207.7
1171.7
1067.8
1035.9
932.9
911.7
815.1
797.5
701.4
683.3
601.7
390.9
327.6
549.0
457.6
460.7
369.3
380.2
292.0
306.5
217.8
280.6
195.2
221.3
134.6
166.6
-639.8
0.0
1650.2
57497.2
1735.8
14349.7
639.8
40771.9
US$MM
25109.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
54.2
276.9
457.5
298.5
663.0
1182.4
1334.1
1351.5
1306.2
1242.9
1166.6
1107.7
1040.4
986.3
958.6
929.8
871.9
828.3
772.0
733.9
683.5
648.8
599.7
569.6
525.3
498.1
454.7
427.4
389.9
285.9
216.2
294.6
302.6
285.0
247.9
233.5
199.3
187.0
153.4
161.0
138.7
131.8
101.4
96.7
-178.8
-106.6
25109.5
US$MM
15662.4
-3.0
-123.6
-185.1
-91.8
-447.9
-125.0
815.8
634.1
327.5
347.2
21.4
781.1
956.2
824.2
839.1
758.6
731.8
668.5
654.7
595.5
581.9
576.5
552.3
496.5
491.5
435.7
437.8
384.3
387.0
333.2
342.0
289.8
299.4
246.6
255.9
211.8
105.0
111.4
254.4
155.0
175.7
121.5
146.7
92.7
119.5
64.4
119.6
56.5
89.5
33.2
69.9
-461.0
106.6
15662.4
US$MM
2765.3
-3.0
-115.1
-156.7
-70.6
-313.3
-79.5
471.6
333.2
156.5
150.8
8.4
280.4
312.0
244.5
226.3
186.0
163.1
135.5
120.6
99.7
88.6
79.8
69.5
56.8
51.1
41.2
37.6
30.0
27.5
21.5
20.1
15.5
14.5
10.9
10.3
7.7
3.5
3.4
7.0
3.9
4.0
2.5
2.7
1.6
1.8
0.9
1.5
0.7
0.9
0.3
0.6
-3.7
0.8
2765.3
ECV2055
113
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Client
Country
Field
Resource
Hurricane
UK
Lancaster
3C
Case
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
Total
Oil
Gas Sales
Oil
Oil
Production
Equivalent Revenue
Mstb/d
413.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
22.4
45.1
60.0
60.0
58.9
55.2
51.6
48.2
45.0
42.1
39.3
36.8
34.3
32.1
30.0
28.0
26.2
24.5
22.9
21.4
20.0
18.7
17.4
16.3
15.2
14.2
10.0
9.6
12.0
11.2
10.4
9.7
9.1
8.5
7.9
7.4
6.9
6.4
6.0
5.6
5.2
0.0
0.0
413.3
MMscf/d
118.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
6.1
15.3
21.3
21.3
20.9
19.4
17.9
16.5
15.2
14.0
12.9
11.9
10.9
10.0
9.1
8.3
7.6
6.9
6.3
5.7
5.1
4.6
4.1
3.6
3.2
2.8
1.1
0.9
1.9
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
118.5
Mboe/d
433.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
23.5
47.6
63.6
63.6
62.4
58.4
54.6
51.0
47.6
44.4
41.5
38.7
36.2
33.8
31.5
29.4
27.5
25.6
23.9
22.3
20.8
19.4
18.1
16.9
15.8
14.7
10.2
9.8
12.3
11.5
10.6
9.9
9.2
8.5
7.9
7.4
6.9
6.4
6.0
5.6
5.2
0.0
0.0
433.1
MM
34904.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
656.7
672.4
684.7
706.0
539.1
1108.6
1502.1
1533.3
1537.2
1480.1
1407.8
1342.7
1280.7
1224.7
1164.8
1110.9
1059.5
1013.2
963.6
919.0
876.4
838.0
797.0
760.0
724.8
693.0
659.0
628.5
599.3
573.1
411.0
403.1
513.1
489.2
463.9
441.3
419.8
400.5
380.0
361.7
344.2
328.6
311.9
297.0
282.8
0.0
0.0
34904.4
Hurricane
Initial
%
100.00%

& SC
Cash Flow
10%
Gas
Revenue
Total
Revenue
Capex
Opex
Abandon
ment
Pre-Tax
Cash Flow
MM
1031.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.6
23.0
23.5
24.0
16.3
41.5
59.2
60.5
60.3
57.0
53.8
50.8
47.7
44.8
42.1
39.6
36.9
34.5
32.2
30.1
27.9
25.8
23.9
22.0
20.2
18.4
16.8
15.2
6.8
12.1
4.7
4.1
8.7
7.3
5.9
4.7
3.4
2.2
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
35935.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
679.3
695.4
708.2
730.0
555.3
1150.2
1561.3
1593.8
1597.5
1537.2
1461.6
1393.5
1328.4
1269.5
1206.9
1150.5
1096.5
1047.7
995.8
949.0
904.3
863.9
820.8
782.1
745.0
711.5
675.8
643.7
606.1
585.1
415.8
407.2
521.8
496.5
469.9
445.9
423.2
402.7
381.0
361.7
344.2
328.6
311.9
297.0
282.8
0.0
0.0
MM
1084.9
1.9
77.3
115.7
57.3
280.0
78.1
0.0
78.2
157.8
36.2
184.5
17.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
8968.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
169.4
187.0
172.6
190.9
170.9
229.7
224.6
244.9
228.3
246.7
227.4
246.6
226.8
247.1
226.7
191.1
170.2
192.5
170.9
194.2
172.0
196.5
173.4
199.0
175.2
202.0
177.3
205.3
179.1
209.1
171.4
202.4
178.7
210.5
181.9
215.1
185.5
220.2
189.5
225.5
168.8
206.5
173.6
212.9
178.6
0.0
0.0
MM
399.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
399.9
0.0
MM
25482.5
-1.9
-77.3
-115.7
-57.3
-280.0
-78.1
509.9
430.2
377.8
502.9
199.9
902.6
1336.6
1348.9
1369.2
1290.5
1234.2
1147.0
1101.5
1022.4
980.2
959.4
926.3
855.2
824.9
754.8
732.3
667.4
647.4
583.1
569.8
509.5
498.5
438.3
427.0
376.1
244.3
204.8
343.1
286.0
287.9
230.8
237.6
182.5
191.6
136.1
175.4
122.0
138.3
84.1
104.1
-399.9
0.0
1031.4
35935.8
1084.9
8968.5
399.9
25482.5
MM
15693.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.9
173.1
286.0
186.6
414.4
739.0
833.8
844.7
816.4
776.8
729.1
692.3
650.3
616.4
599.1
581.2
544.9
517.7
482.5
458.7
427.2
405.5
374.8
356.0
328.3
311.3
284.2
267.1
243.7
178.7
135.1
184.1
189.1
178.1
154.9
145.9
124.6
116.9
95.9
100.6
86.7
82.4
63.3
60.4
-111.8
-66.6
15693.4
MM
9789.0
-1.9
-77.3
-115.7
-57.3
-280.0
-78.1
509.9
396.3
204.7
217.0
13.3
488.2
597.6
515.2
524.5
474.1
457.3
417.8
409.2
372.2
363.7
360.3
345.2
310.3
307.2
272.3
273.6
240.2
241.9
208.3
213.8
181.1
187.1
154.1
159.9
132.4
65.6
69.6
159.0
96.9
109.8
75.9
91.7
58.0
74.7
40.3
74.8
35.3
55.9
20.8
43.7
-288.1
66.6
9789.0
MM
1728.3
-1.9
-71.9
-97.9
-44.1
-195.8
-49.7
294.8
208.3
97.8
94.2
5.3
175.2
195.0
152.8
141.4
116.2
101.9
84.7
75.4
62.3
55.4
49.9
43.4
35.5
31.9
25.7
23.5
18.8
17.2
13.4
12.5
9.7
9.1
6.8
6.4
4.8
2.2
2.1
4.4
2.4
2.5
1.6
1.7
1.0
1.2
0.6
1.0
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.4
-2.3
0.5
1728.3
Inputs (UK) to 2063
ECV2055
114
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Hurricane
UK
OIL
Client
Country
Field
Phase
Hurricane
TECHNICAL RESOURCES
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Days
Resources
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
Sub Total
Remaining
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
Total
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
21,197
17,500
18,812
15,688
9,278
14,895
15,710
12,027
9,207
7,046
5,392
4,128
3,160
2,418
1,850
1,417
1,084
830
635
486
372
285
218
167
128
98
75
57
44
34
20
17
17
13
10
8
6
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.74
6.41
6.87
5.73
3.39
5.45
5.73
4.39
3.36
2.58
1.97
1.51
1.15
0.89
0.68
0.52
0.40
0.30
0.23
0.18
0.14
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
60.03
60.03
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.74
14.14
21.01
26.735
30.12
35.57
41.31
45.70
49.06
51.64
53.60
55.11
56.26
57.15
57.82
58.34
58.74
59.04
59.27
59.45
59.59
59.69
59.77
59.83
59.88
59.91
59.94
59.96
59.98
59.99
60.00
60.00
60.01
60.01
60.02
60.02
60.02
60.02
60.03
60.03
60.03
60.03
60.03
60.03
60.03
Initial
%
100.00%
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
21,197
17,500
18,812
15,688
9,278
14,895
15,710
12,027
9,207
7,046
5,392
4,128
3,160
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.74
6.41
6.87
5.73
3.39
5.45
5.73
4.39
3.36
2.58
1.97
1.51
1.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
56.26
0.00
56.26
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.74
14.14
21.01
26.73
30.12
35.57
41.31
45.70
49.06
51.64
53.60
55.11
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
21,197
17,500
18,812
15,688
9,278
14,895
15,710
12,027
9,207
7,046
5,392
4,128
3,160
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.74
6.41
6.87
5.73
3.39
5.45
5.73
4.39
3.36
2.58
1.97
1.51
1.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
56.26
0.00
56.26
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.74
14.14
21.01
26.73
30.12
35.57
41.31
45.70
49.06
51.64
53.60
55.11
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26

Resources
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
21,197
17,500
18,812
15,688
9,278
14,895
15,710
12,027
9,207
7,046
5,392
4,128
3,160
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.74
6.41
6.87
5.73
3.39
5.45
5.73
4.39
3.36
2.58
1.97
1.51
1.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
56.26
0.00
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.74
14.14
21.01
26.73
30.12
35.57
41.31
45.70
49.06
51.64
53.60
55.11
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
56.26
Notes :
Table B.19 Lancaster 1C Contingent Resources (Base Case, including buyout) Summary of
ECV2055
115
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Client
Country
Field
Resource
Hurricane
UK
Lancaster
1C
Case
Base Case with 5 Year Lease and buy out option
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
Total
Oil
Gas Sales
Oil
Oil
Production
Equivalent Revenue
Mstb/d
56.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.2
17.5
18.8
15.7
9.3
14.9
15.7
12.0
9.2
7.0
5.4
4.1
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
56.3
MMscf/d
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
4.1
4.6
3.4
0.8
3.0
3.4
1.9
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
Mboe/d
57.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.1
18.2
19.6
16.2
9.4
15.4
16.3
12.3
9.3
7.0
5.4
4.1
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
57.9
US$MM
5961.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
742.4
627.6
687.0
590.7
356.6
586.1
629.3
491.8
384.3
302.3
235.5
184.0
143.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5961.3
Hurricane
Initial
%
100.00%

& SC
Cash Flow
10%
Gas
Revenue
Total
Revenue
Capex
Opex
Abandon
ment
Pre-Tax
Cash Flow
US$MM
114.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.0
16.5
19.0
14.1
3.2
13.2
14.9
8.5
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
6076.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
764.4
644.0
706.0
604.8
359.9
599.3
644.2
500.3
387.7
302.3
235.5
184.0
143.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
3152.8
3.0
123.6
185.1
91.7
447.9
124.9
0.0
125.2
252.6
187.6
1089.4
521.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
2487.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
262.3
286.6
264.6
290.4
259.3
151.5
127.1
154.3
124.7
154.8
125.6
158.0
128.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
592.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
592.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
-156.7
-3.0
-123.6
-185.1
-91.7
-447.9
-124.9
502.1
232.2
188.8
126.7
-988.8
-74.0
517.1
345.9
262.9
147.5
109.9
26.0
15.4
-592.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
114.8
6076.1
3152.8
2487.6
592.3
-156.7
US$MM
24.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.7
11.3
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.2
US$MM
-180.9
-3.0
-123.6
-185.1
-91.7
-447.9
-124.9
502.1
232.2
188.8
126.7
-988.8
-74.0
517.1
345.9
262.9
147.5
109.9
16.2
4.2
-595.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-180.9
US$MM
-290.2
-3.0
-115.1
-156.7
-70.6
-313.3
-79.5
290.3
122.0
90.2
55.0
-390.4
-26.6
168.7
102.6
70.9
36.2
24.5
3.3
0.8
-99.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-290.2
Table B.20 Lancaster 1C Contingent Resources (Base Case, including buyout) Development Case
ECV2055
116
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Client
Country
Field
Resource
Hurricane
UK
Lancaster
1C
Case
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
Total
Oil
Gas Sales
Oil
Oil
Production
Equivalent Revenue
Mstb/d
56.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.2
17.5
18.8
15.7
9.3
14.9
15.7
12.0
9.2
7.0
5.4
4.1
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
56.3
MMscf/d
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
4.1
4.6
3.4
0.8
3.0
3.4
1.9
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
Mboe/d
57.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.1
18.2
19.6
16.2
9.4
15.4
16.3
12.3
9.3
7.0
5.4
4.1
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
57.9
MM
3725.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
464.0
392.2
429.4
369.2
222.9
366.3
393.3
307.4
240.2
188.9
147.2
115.0
89.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3725.8
Hurricane
Initial
%
100.00%

& SC
Cash Flow
10%
Gas
Revenue
Total
Revenue
Capex
Opex
Abandon
ment
Pre-Tax
Cash Flow
MM
71.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.8
10.3
11.9
8.8
2.0
8.3
9.3
5.3
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
3797.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
477.8
402.5
441.2
378.0
224.9
374.6
402.6
312.7
242.3
188.9
147.2
115.0
89.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
1970.5
1.9
77.3
115.7
57.3
279.9
78.1
0.0
78.2
157.8
117.3
680.9
326.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
1554.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
163.9
179.1
165.4
181.5
162.1
94.7
79.5
96.5
78.0
96.7
78.5
98.8
80.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
370.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
370.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
-97.9
-1.9
-77.3
-115.7
-57.3
-279.9
-78.1
313.8
145.1
118.0
79.2
-618.0
-46.2
323.2
216.2
164.3
92.2
68.7
16.2
9.6
-370.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
71.8
3797.5
1970.5
1554.8
370.2
-97.9
MM
15.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.1
7.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.1
MM
-113.0
-1.9
-77.3
-115.7
-57.3
-279.9
-78.1
313.8
145.1
118.0
79.2
-618.0
-46.2
323.2
216.2
164.3
92.2
68.7
10.1
2.6
-372.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-113.0
MM
-181.4
-1.9
-71.9
-97.9
-44.1
-195.8
-49.7
181.4
76.3
56.4
34.4
-244.0
-16.6
105.5
64.1
44.3
22.6
15.3
2.1
0.5
-62.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-181.4
Inputs (UK) to 2063
ECV2055
117
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Hurricane
UK
OIL
Client
Country
Field
Phase
Hurricane
TECHNICAL RESOURCES
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Days
Resources
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
Sub Total
Remaining
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
Total
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
29,998
30,000
30,000
22,438
33,874
40,722
36,252
32,272
28,725
25,567
22,760
20,261
18,035
16,052
14,290
12,721
11,323
10,078
8,972
7,987
7,109
6,327
5,633
5,014
4,463
3,973
3,536
3,148
2,802
1,892
1,759
2,100
1,861
1,650
1,464
1,299
1,153
1,024
910
808
718
638
567
504
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
10.98
10.95
10.95
8.19
12.40
14.86
13.23
11.78
10.51
9.33
8.31
7.40
6.60
5.86
5.22
4.64
4.14
3.68
3.27
2.92
2.60
2.31
2.06
1.83
1.63
1.45
1.29
1.15
1.03
0.69
0.64
0.77
0.68
0.60
0.53
0.47
0.42
0.37
0.33
0.29
0.26
0.23
0.21
0.18
198.22
198.22
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
21.93
32.88
43.829
52.02
64.42
79.28
92.51
104.29
114.80
124.14
132.44
139.84
146.44
152.30
157.51
162.16
166.30
169.98
173.26
176.17
178.77
181.08
183.14
184.97
186.60
188.05
189.34
190.49
191.52
192.21
192.85
193.62
194.30
194.90
195.43
195.91
196.33
196.70
197.04
197.33
197.59
197.83
198.03
198.22
Initial
%
100.00%
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
29,998
30,000
30,000
22,438
33,874
40,722
36,252
32,272
28,725
25,567
22,760
20,261
18,035
16,052
14,290
12,721
11,323
10,078
8,972
7,987
7,109
6,327
5,633
5,014
4,463
3,973
3,536
3,148
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
10.98
10.95
10.95
8.19
12.40
14.86
13.23
11.78
10.51
9.33
8.31
7.40
6.60
5.86
5.22
4.64
4.14
3.68
3.27
2.92
2.60
2.31
2.06
1.83
1.63
1.45
1.29
1.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
190.49
0.00
190.49
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
21.93
32.88
43.83
52.02
64.42
79.28
92.51
104.29
114.80
124.14
132.44
139.84
146.44
152.30
157.51
162.16
166.30
169.98
173.26
176.17
178.77
181.08
183.14
184.97
186.60
188.05
189.34
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
29,998
30,000
30,000
22,438
33,874
40,722
36,252
32,272
28,725
25,567
22,760
20,261
18,035
16,052
14,290
12,721
11,323
10,078
8,972
7,987
7,109
6,327
5,633
5,014
4,463
3,973
3,536
3,148
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
10.98
10.95
10.95
8.19
12.40
14.86
13.23
11.78
10.51
9.33
8.31
7.40
6.60
5.86
5.22
4.64
4.14
3.68
3.27
2.92
2.60
2.31
2.06
1.83
1.63
1.45
1.29
1.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
190.49
0.00
190.49
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
21.93
32.88
43.83
52.02
64.42
79.28
92.51
104.29
114.80
124.14
132.44
139.84
146.44
152.30
157.51
162.16
166.30
169.98
173.26
176.17
178.77
181.08
183.14
184.97
186.60
188.05
189.34
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49

Resources
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
29,998
30,000
30,000
22,438
33,874
40,722
36,252
32,272
28,725
25,567
22,760
20,261
18,035
16,052
14,290
12,721
11,323
10,078
8,972
7,987
7,109
6,327
5,633
5,014
4,463
3,973
3,536
3,148
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
10.98
10.95
10.95
8.19
12.40
14.86
13.23
11.78
10.51
9.33
8.31
7.40
6.60
5.86
5.22
4.64
4.14
3.68
3.27
2.92
2.60
2.31
2.06
1.83
1.63
1.45
1.29
1.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
190.49
0.00
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
21.93
32.88
43.83
52.02
64.42
79.28
92.51
104.29
114.80
124.14
132.44
139.84
146.44
152.30
157.51
162.16
166.30
169.98
173.26
176.17
178.77
181.08
183.14
184.97
186.60
188.05
189.34
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
190.49
Notes :
ECV2055
118
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Client
Country
Field
Resource
Hurricane
UK
Lancaster
2C
Case
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
Total
Oil
Gas Sales
Oil
Oil
Production
Equivalent Revenue
Mstb/d
190.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
22.4
33.9
40.7
36.3
32.3
28.7
25.6
22.8
20.3
18.0
16.1
14.3
12.7
11.3
10.1
9.0
8.0
7.1
6.3
5.6
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
190.5
MMscf/d
48.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
9.1
9.2
9.2
6.1
10.7
13.5
11.7
10.1
8.6
7.4
6.2
5.2
4.3
3.5
2.8
2.2
1.6
1.1
0.6
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
48.3
Mboe/d
198.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
23.5
35.7
43.0
38.2
34.0
30.2
26.8
23.8
21.1
18.8
16.6
14.8
13.1
11.6
10.3
9.1
8.0
7.1
6.3
5.6
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
198.5
US$MM
22476.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1050.7
1075.8
1095.5
1129.6
862.5
1332.8
1631.2
1482.3
1347.0
1232.5
1116.6
1014.5
921.8
839.7
760.7
691.1
627.9
572.0
518.1
470.7
427.7
389.5
352.9
320.6
291.2
265.3
240.3
218.3
198.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22476.9
Hurricane
Initial
%
100.00%

& SC
Cash Flow
10%
Gas
Revenue
Total
Revenue
Capex
Opex
Abandon
ment
Pre-Tax
Cash Flow
US$MM
600.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.1
36.8
37.6
38.4
26.0
46.7
60.0
53.1
46.6
40.7
35.4
30.6
26.1
22.0
18.2
14.8
11.7
8.8
6.1
3.7
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
23077.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1086.8
1112.6
1133.1
1168.0
888.5
1379.5
1691.1
1535.4
1393.5
1273.2
1151.9
1045.1
947.8
861.7
778.9
706.0
639.6
580.7
524.2
474.4
429.0
389.5
352.9
320.6
291.2
265.3
240.3
218.3
198.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
3152.8
3.0
123.6
185.1
91.7
447.9
124.9
0.0
125.2
252.6
187.6
1089.4
521.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
5594.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
271.0
299.2
276.1
305.4
273.4
172.3
155.0
181.9
151.4
180.4
149.5
180.3
148.9
181.5
149.4
183.8
150.9
187.2
153.3
191.3
156.4
196.4
160.4
202.4
165.2
209.0
170.4
216.1
176.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
813.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
813.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
13517.1
-3.0
-123.6
-185.1
-91.7
-447.9
-124.9
815.8
688.2
604.4
674.9
-474.3
685.5
1536.1
1353.5
1242.1
1092.8
1002.5
864.9
799.0
680.1
629.5
522.1
488.7
393.6
371.0
283.1
272.7
193.2
192.4
118.2
126.0
56.3
69.8
2.2
22.1
-813.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
600.6
23077.5
3152.8
5594.5
813.1
13517.1
US$MM
8232.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
54.2
276.9
403.9
-56.6
185.3
776.6
876.9
793.1
708.4
640.2
564.7
509.0
446.2
400.8
345.9
309.9
263.7
234.7
193.7
171.2
136.2
119.5
88.6
76.5
49.3
40.5
15.3
9.6
-266.4
-135.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8232.3
US$MM
5284.8
-3.0
-123.6
-185.1
-91.7
-447.9
-124.9
815.8
634.0
327.5
271.1
-417.7
500.2
759.5
476.6
449.0
384.4
362.3
300.2
290.0
233.9
228.8
176.2
178.8
129.9
136.3
89.4
101.5
57.0
73.0
29.6
49.5
7.0
29.3
-13.2
12.5
-546.6
135.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5284.8
US$MM
1322.8
-3.0
-115.1
-156.7
-70.6
-313.3
-79.5
471.6
333.2
156.5
117.7
-164.9
179.5
247.8
141.4
121.1
94.2
80.7
60.8
53.4
39.2
34.8
24.4
22.5
14.9
14.2
8.5
8.7
4.5
5.2
1.9
2.9
0.4
1.4
-0.6
0.5
-19.9
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1322.8
ECV2055
119
RPS Energy
Inputs (UK) to 2063
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Client
Country
Field
Resource
Hurricane
UK
Lancaster
2C
Case
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
Total
ECV2055
Oil
Gas Sales
Oil
Oil
Production
Equivalent Revenue
Mstb/d
190.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
22.4
33.9
40.7
36.3
32.3
28.7
25.6
22.8
20.3
18.0
16.1
14.3
12.7
11.3
10.1
9.0
8.0
7.1
6.3
5.6
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
190.5
MMscf/d
48.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
9.1
9.2
9.2
6.1
10.7
13.5
11.7
10.1
8.6
7.4
6.2
5.2
4.3
3.5
2.8
2.2
1.6
1.1
0.6
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
48.3
Mboe/d
198.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
23.5
35.7
43.0
38.2
34.0
30.2
26.8
23.8
21.1
18.8
16.6
14.8
13.1
11.6
10.3
9.1
8.0
7.1
6.3
5.6
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
198.5
MM
14048.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
656.7
672.3
684.7
706.0
539.1
833.0
1019.5
926.4
841.9
770.3
697.9
634.1
576.1
524.8
475.4
432.0
392.5
357.5
323.8
294.2
267.3
243.5
220.5
200.4
182.0
165.8
150.2
136.4
123.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14048.1
Hurricane
Initial
%
100.00%

& SC
Cash Flow
10%
Gas
Revenue
Total
Revenue
Capex
Opex
Abandon
ment
Pre-Tax
Cash Flow
MM
375.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.6
23.0
23.5
24.0
16.3
29.2
37.5
33.2
29.1
25.4
22.1
19.1
16.3
13.7
11.4
9.3
7.3
5.5
3.8
2.3
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
14423.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
679.3
695.4
708.2
730.0
555.3
862.2
1056.9
959.6
871.0
795.7
720.0
653.2
592.4
538.5
486.8
441.2
399.7
363.0
327.7
296.5
268.2
243.5
220.5
200.4
182.0
165.8
150.2
136.4
123.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
1970.5
1.9
77.3
115.7
57.3
279.9
78.1
0.0
78.2
157.8
117.3
680.9
326.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
3496.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
169.4
187.0
172.6
190.9
170.9
107.7
96.9
113.7
94.6
112.7
93.4
112.7
93.0
113.5
93.4
114.9
94.3
117.0
95.8
119.6
97.7
122.7
100.3
126.5
103.2
130.6
106.5
135.1
110.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
508.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
508.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
8448.2
-1.9
-77.3
-115.7
-57.3
-279.9
-78.1
509.9
430.1
377.8
421.8
-296.4
428.4
960.1
846.0
776.3
683.0
626.5
540.5
499.4
425.1
393.5
326.3
305.4
246.0
231.9
176.9
170.4
120.7
120.3
73.9
78.8
35.2
43.6
1.4
13.8
-508.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
375.3
14423.4
1970.5
3496.6
508.2
8448.2
MM
5145.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.9
173.1
252.4
-35.3
115.8
485.4
548.1
495.7
442.7
400.1
352.9
318.1
278.9
250.5
216.2
193.7
164.8
146.7
121.0
107.0
85.1
74.7
55.4
47.8
30.8
25.3
9.6
6.0
-166.5
-84.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5145.2
MM
3303.0
-1.9
-77.3
-115.7
-57.3
-279.9
-78.1
509.9
396.2
204.7
169.4
-261.1
312.6
474.7
297.9
280.6
240.3
226.4
187.6
181.2
146.2
143.0
110.1
111.7
81.2
85.2
55.9
63.4
35.6
45.6
18.5
30.9
4.4
18.3
-8.2
7.8
-341.6
84.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3303.0
MM
826.8
-1.9
-71.9
-97.9
-44.1
-195.8
-49.7
294.8
208.2
97.8
73.6
-103.1
112.2
154.9
88.4
75.7
58.9
50.5
38.0
33.4
24.5
21.8
15.2
14.1
9.3
8.9
5.3
5.4
2.8
3.2
1.2
1.8
0.2
0.9
-0.4
0.3
-12.5
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
826.8
120
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Hurricane
UK
OIL
Client
Country
Field
Phase
Hurricane
TECHNICAL RESOURCES
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Days
Resources
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
Sub Total
Remaining
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
366
365
365
365
Total
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
22,438
45,082
60,000
60,000
58,926
55,197
51,576
48,198
45,041
42,087
39,327
36,751
34,344
32,091
29,986
28,022
26,187
24,469
22,864
21,367
19,967
18,658
17,434
16,292
15,225
14,227
10,027
9,636
12,021
11,201
10,438
9,730
9,072
8,458
7,887
7,356
6,862
6,401
5,972
5,573
5,201
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
10.98
10.95
10.95
8.19
16.50
21.90
21.90
21.51
20.20
18.83
17.59
16.44
15.40
14.35
13.41
12.54
11.75
10.94
10.23
9.56
8.96
8.35
7.80
7.29
6.83
6.36
5.95
5.56
5.21
3.66
3.52
4.39
4.10
3.81
3.55
3.31
3.10
2.88
2.69
2.50
2.34
2.18
2.03
1.90
413.32
413.32
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
21.93
32.88
43.830
52.02
68.52
90.42
112.32
133.83
154.03
172.86
190.45
206.89
222.29
236.65
250.06
262.59
274.34
285.29
295.51
305.07
314.03
322.37
330.17
337.46
344.29
350.65
356.60
362.16
367.36
371.02
374.54
378.93
383.03
386.84
390.39
393.70
396.80
399.67
402.36
404.86
407.21
409.39
411.42
413.32
Initial
%
100.00%
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
22,438
45,082
60,000
60,000
58,926
55,197
51,576
48,198
45,041
42,087
39,327
36,751
34,344
32,091
29,986
28,022
26,187
24,469
22,864
21,367
19,967
18,658
17,434
16,292
15,225
14,227
10,027
9,636
12,021
11,201
10,438
9,730
9,072
8,458
7,887
7,356
6,862
6,401
5,972
5,573
5,201
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
10.98
10.95
10.95
8.19
16.50
21.90
21.90
21.51
20.20
18.83
17.59
16.44
15.40
14.35
13.41
12.54
11.75
10.94
10.23
9.56
8.96
8.35
7.80
7.29
6.83
6.36
5.95
5.56
5.21
3.66
3.52
4.39
4.10
3.81
3.55
3.31
3.10
2.88
2.69
2.50
2.34
2.18
2.03
1.90
413.32
0.00
413.32
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
21.93
32.88
43.83
52.02
68.52
90.42
112.32
133.83
154.03
172.86
190.45
206.89
222.29
236.65
250.06
262.59
274.34
285.29
295.51
305.07
314.03
322.37
330.17
337.46
344.29
350.65
356.60
362.16
367.36
371.02
374.54
378.93
383.03
386.84
390.39
393.70
396.80
399.67
402.36
404.86
407.21
409.39
411.42
413.32
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
22,438
45,082
60,000
60,000
58,926
55,197
51,576
48,198
45,041
42,087
39,327
36,751
34,344
32,091
29,986
28,022
26,187
24,469
22,864
21,367
19,967
18,658
17,434
16,292
15,225
14,227
10,027
9,636
12,021
11,201
10,438
9,730
9,072
8,458
7,887
7,356
6,862
6,401
5,972
5,573
5,201
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
10.98
10.95
10.95
8.19
16.50
21.90
21.90
21.51
20.20
18.83
17.59
16.44
15.40
14.35
13.41
12.54
11.75
10.94
10.23
9.56
8.96
8.35
7.80
7.29
6.83
6.36
5.95
5.56
5.21
3.66
3.52
4.39
4.10
3.81
3.55
3.31
3.10
2.88
2.69
2.50
2.34
2.18
2.03
1.90
413.32
0.00
413.32
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
21.93
32.88
43.83
52.02
68.52
90.42
112.32
133.83
154.03
172.86
190.45
206.89
222.29
236.65
250.06
262.59
274.34
285.29
295.51
305.07
314.03
322.37
330.17
337.46
344.29
350.65
356.60
362.16
367.36
371.02
374.54
378.93
383.03
386.84
390.39
393.70
396.80
399.67
402.36
404.86
407.21
409.39
411.42
413.32

Resources
stb/d
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
22,438
45,082
60,000
60,000
58,926
55,197
51,576
48,198
45,041
42,087
39,327
36,751
34,344
32,091
29,986
28,022
26,187
24,469
22,864
21,367
19,967
18,658
17,434
16,292
15,225
14,227
10,027
9,636
12,021
11,201
10,438
9,730
9,072
8,458
7,887
7,356
6,862
6,401
5,972
5,573
5,201
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
10.98
10.95
10.95
8.19
16.50
21.90
21.90
21.51
20.20
18.83
17.59
16.44
15.40
14.35
13.41
12.54
11.75
10.94
10.23
9.56
8.96
8.35
7.80
7.29
6.83
6.36
5.95
5.56
5.21
3.66
3.52
4.39
4.10
3.81
3.55
3.31
3.10
2.88
2.69
2.50
2.34
2.18
2.03
1.90
413.32
0.00
Cum.
MM bbls
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.95
21.93
32.88
43.83
52.02
68.52
90.42
112.32
133.83
154.03
172.86
190.45
206.89
222.29
236.65
250.06
262.59
274.34
285.29
295.51
305.07
314.03
322.37
330.17
337.46
344.29
350.65
356.60
362.16
367.36
371.02
374.54
378.93
383.03
386.84
390.39
393.70
396.80
399.67
402.36
404.86
407.21
409.39
411.42
413.32
413.32
Notes :
ECV2055
121
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Client
Country
Field
Resource
Hurricane
UK
Lancaster
3C
Case
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
Total
Oil
Gas Sales
Oil
Oil
Production
Equivalent Revenue
Mstb/d
413.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
22.4
45.1
60.0
60.0
58.9
55.2
51.6
48.2
45.0
42.1
39.3
36.8
34.3
32.1
30.0
28.0
26.2
24.5
22.9
21.4
20.0
18.7
17.4
16.3
15.2
14.2
10.0
9.6
12.0
11.2
10.4
9.7
9.1
8.5
7.9
7.4
6.9
6.4
6.0
5.6
5.2
0.0
0.0
413.3
MMscf/d
118.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
6.1
15.3
21.3
21.3
20.9
19.4
17.9
16.5
15.2
14.0
12.9
11.9
10.9
10.0
9.1
8.3
7.6
6.9
6.3
5.7
5.1
4.6
4.1
3.6
3.2
2.8
1.1
0.9
1.9
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
118.5
Mboe/d
433.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
23.5
47.6
63.6
63.6
62.4
58.4
54.6
51.0
47.6
44.4
41.5
38.7
36.2
33.8
31.5
29.4
27.5
25.6
23.9
22.3
20.8
19.4
18.1
16.9
15.8
14.7
10.2
9.8
12.3
11.5
10.6
9.9
9.2
8.5
7.9
7.4
6.9
6.4
6.0
5.6
5.2
0.0
0.0
433.1
US$MM
55847.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1050.7
1075.8
1095.5
1129.6
862.5
1773.8
2403.3
2453.3
2459.5
2368.2
2252.5
2148.4
2049.1
1959.6
1863.7
1777.5
1695.3
1621.1
1541.7
1470.3
1402.3
1340.9
1275.1
1216.0
1159.7
1108.9
1054.5
1005.6
958.9
916.9
657.6
644.9
821.0
782.7
742.3
706.0
671.7
640.8
608.0
578.7
550.8
525.7
499.0
475.1
452.4
0.0
0.0
55847.0
Hurricane
Initial
%
100.00%

& SC
Cash Flow
10%
Gas
Revenue
Total
Revenue
Capex
Opex
Abandon
ment
Pre-Tax
Cash Flow
US$MM
1650.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
36.1
36.8
37.6
38.4
26.0
66.5
94.7
96.8
96.5
91.3
86.0
81.3
76.3
71.7
67.3
63.3
59.1
55.2
51.5
48.1
44.6
41.3
38.2
35.3
32.3
29.5
26.8
24.3
10.9
19.4
7.6
6.6
13.9
11.7
9.5
7.4
5.4
3.5
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
57497.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1086.8
1112.7
1133.1
1168.0
888.5
1840.3
2498.0
2550.2
2556.0
2459.5
2338.5
2229.7
2125.4
2031.3
1931.0
1840.8
1754.4
1676.4
1593.2
1518.5
1446.9
1382.2
1313.3
1251.3
1192.0
1138.4
1081.3
1029.9
969.8
936.2
665.2
651.5
834.9
794.4
751.8
713.5
677.1
644.3
609.6
578.7
550.8
525.7
499.0
475.1
452.4
0.0
0.0
US$MM
4143.0
3.0
123.6
185.1
91.7
447.9
124.9
0.0
125.2
252.6
187.6
1089.4
521.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
490.2
500.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
US$MM
10139.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
271.0
299.2
276.1
305.4
273.4
184.5
176.4
208.8
182.3
211.7
180.8
211.5
179.9
212.4
179.7
213.7
180.2
216.0
181.4
218.8
183.1
222.4
185.4
226.4
188.3
231.2
191.7
236.5
194.6
242.5
194.3
243.9
205.9
256.7
211.1
264.2
216.9
272.2
223.2
280.9
230.1
290.5
237.7
300.6
245.8
0.0
0.0
US$MM
1116.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1116.2
0.0
US$MM
42098.4
-3.0
-123.6
-185.1
-91.7
-447.9
-124.9
815.8
688.2
604.4
674.9
-474.3
1134.0
2321.6
2341.3
2373.7
2247.8
2157.7
2018.1
1945.5
1818.9
1751.2
1627.0
1574.1
1460.4
1411.9
1299.7
1263.7
1159.8
1127.9
1024.9
1003.7
907.1
889.5
793.4
775.3
203.5
-29.1
407.6
629.0
537.6
540.7
449.3
460.2
372.0
386.5
297.8
320.6
235.2
261.3
174.6
206.6
-1116.2
0.0
1650.2
57497.2
4143.0
10139.7
1116.2
42098.4
US$MM
25989.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
54.2
276.9
403.9
-56.6
370.7
1193.9
1447.5
1465.0
1419.7
1356.4
1280.1
1221.2
1153.9
1099.8
1034.4
986.9
928.9
885.4
829.0
790.9
740.6
705.9
656.7
626.7
582.4
555.2
511.8
484.4
244.3
30.1
162.5
344.2
352.2
334.6
297.5
283.1
248.9
236.6
203.0
194.1
163.5
156.6
126.2
121.5
-329.4
-186.0
25989.0
US$MM
16109.3
-3.0
-123.6
-185.1
-91.7
-447.9
-124.9
815.8
634.0
327.5
271.1
-417.7
763.3
1127.6
893.8
908.7
828.2
801.3
738.1
724.3
665.0
651.5
592.6
587.2
531.4
526.5
470.7
472.8
419.3
422.0
368.2
377.0
324.8
334.4
281.6
290.9
-40.8
-59.1
245.1
284.8
185.4
206.1
151.9
177.1
123.1
149.9
94.8
126.6
71.7
104.7
48.4
85.1
-786.8
186.0
16109.3
US$MM
2759.0
-3.0
-115.1
-156.7
-70.6
-313.3
-79.5
471.6
333.2
156.5
117.7
-164.9
274.0
368.0
265.1
245.1
203.0
178.6
149.5
133.4
111.4
99.2
82.0
73.9
60.8
54.7
44.5
40.6
32.8
30.0
23.8
22.1
17.3
16.2
12.4
11.7
-1.5
-2.0
7.4
7.8
4.6
4.7
3.1
3.3
2.1
2.3
1.3
1.6
0.8
1.1
0.5
0.7
-6.2
1.3
2759.0
ECV2055
122
RPS Energy
CASE PARAMETERS
COMPANY INTERESTS
Client
Country
Field
Resource
Hurricane
UK
Lancaster
3C
Case
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
Total
Oil
Gas Sales
Oil
Oil
Production
Equivalent Revenue
Mstb/d
413.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
22.4
45.1
60.0
60.0
58.9
55.2
51.6
48.2
45.0
42.1
39.3
36.8
34.3
32.1
30.0
28.0
26.2
24.5
22.9
21.4
20.0
18.7
17.4
16.3
15.2
14.2
10.0
9.6
12.0
11.2
10.4
9.7
9.1
8.5
7.9
7.4
6.9
6.4
6.0
5.6
5.2
0.0
0.0
413.3
MMscf/d
118.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
6.1
15.3
21.3
21.3
20.9
19.4
17.9
16.5
15.2
14.0
12.9
11.9
10.9
10.0
9.1
8.3
7.6
6.9
6.3
5.7
5.1
4.6
4.1
3.6
3.2
2.8
1.1
0.9
1.9
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
118.5
Mboe/d
433.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.5
31.5
31.5
31.5
23.5
47.6
63.6
63.6
62.4
58.4
54.6
51.0
47.6
44.4
41.5
38.7
36.2
33.8
31.5
29.4
27.5
25.6
23.9
22.3
20.8
19.4
18.1
16.9
15.8
14.7
10.2
9.8
12.3
11.5
10.6
9.9
9.2
8.5
7.9
7.4
6.9
6.4
6.0
5.6
5.2
0.0
0.0
433.1
MM
34904.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
656.7
672.4
684.7
706.0
539.1
1108.6
1502.1
1533.3
1537.2
1480.1
1407.8
1342.7
1280.7
1224.7
1164.8
1110.9
1059.5
1013.2
963.6
919.0
876.4
838.0
797.0
760.0
724.8
693.0
659.0
628.5
599.3
573.1
411.0
403.1
513.1
489.2
463.9
441.3
419.8
400.5
380.0
361.7
344.2
328.6
311.9
297.0
282.8
0.0
0.0
34904.4
Hurricane
Initial
%
100.00%

& SC
Cash Flow
10%
Gas
Revenue
Total
Revenue
Capex
Opex
Abandon
ment
Pre-Tax
Cash Flow
MM
1031.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.6
23.0
23.5
24.0
16.3
41.5
59.2
60.5
60.3
57.0
53.8
50.8
47.7
44.8
42.1
39.6
36.9
34.5
32.2
30.1
27.9
25.8
23.9
22.0
20.2
18.4
16.8
15.2
6.8
12.1
4.7
4.1
8.7
7.3
5.9
4.7
3.4
2.2
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
35935.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
679.3
695.4
708.2
730.0
555.3
1150.2
1561.3
1593.8
1597.5
1537.2
1461.6
1393.5
1328.4
1269.5
1206.9
1150.5
1096.5
1047.7
995.8
949.0
904.3
863.9
820.8
782.1
745.0
711.5
675.8
643.7
606.1
585.1
415.8
407.2
521.8
496.5
469.9
445.9
423.2
402.7
381.0
361.7
344.2
328.6
311.9
297.0
282.8
0.0
0.0
MM
2589.4
1.9
77.3
115.7
57.3
279.9
78.1
0.0
78.2
157.8
117.3
680.9
326.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
306.4
312.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MM
6337.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
169.4
187.0
172.6
190.9
170.9
115.3
110.3
130.5
113.9
132.3
113.0
132.2
112.5
132.7
112.3
133.6
112.7
135.0
113.4
136.7
114.5
139.0
115.9
141.5
117.7
144.5
119.8
147.8
121.6
151.6
121.4
152.4
128.7
160.5
131.9
165.1
135.5
170.2
139.5
175.5
143.8
181.5
148.6
187.9
153.6
0.0
0.0
MM
697.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
697.6
0.0
MM
26311.5
-1.9
-77.3
-115.7
-57.3
-279.9
-78.1
509.9
430.2
377.8
421.8
-296.4
708.7
1451.0
1463.3
1483.5
1404.9
1348.6
1261.3
1215.9
1136.8
1094.5
1016.9
983.8
912.7
882.4
812.3
789.8
724.9
704.9
640.6
627.3
567.0
556.0
495.8
484.5
127.2
-18.2
254.8
393.1
336.0
337.9
280.8
287.6
232.5
241.6
186.1
200.4
147.0
163.3
109.1
129.1
-697.6
0.0
1031.4
35935.8
2589.4
6337.3
697.6
26311.5
MM
16243.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.9
173.1
252.4
-35.3
231.7
746.2
904.7
915.6
887.3
847.7
800.1
763.3
721.2
687.3
646.5
616.8
580.6
553.4
518.1
494.3
462.9
441.2
410.4
391.7
364.0
347.0
319.8
302.7
152.7
18.8
101.6
215.1
220.1
209.1
185.9
176.9
155.6
147.9
126.9
121.3
102.2
97.9
78.8
75.9
-205.8
-116.3
16243.1
MM
10068.3
-1.9
-77.3
-115.7
-57.3
-279.9
-78.1
509.9
396.3
204.7
169.4
-261.1
477.1
704.8
558.6
567.9
517.6
500.8
461.3
452.7
415.6
407.2
370.4
367.0
332.1
329.1
294.2
295.5
262.0
263.7
230.1
235.6
203.0
209.0
176.0
181.8
-25.5
-36.9
153.2
178.0
115.9
128.8
94.9
110.7
77.0
93.7
59.3
79.1
44.8
65.4
30.3
53.2
-491.8
116.3
10068.3
MM
1724.4
-1.9
-71.9
-97.9
-44.1
-195.8
-49.7
294.8
208.3
97.8
73.6
-103.1
171.2
230.0
165.7
153.2
126.9
111.6
93.5
83.4
69.6
62.0
51.3
46.2
38.0
34.2
27.8
25.4
20.5
18.7
14.9
13.8
10.8
10.1
7.8
7.3
-0.9
-1.2
4.6
4.9
2.9
2.9
2.0
2.1
1.3
1.4
0.8
1.0
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.5
-3.9
0.8
1724.4
Inputs (UK) to 2063
ECV2055
123
RPS Energy
APPENDIX C:
STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY
1. Arithmetic vs. statistical aggregation

The volumetric uncertainty in Reserves (1P, 2P and 3P) and Contingent Resources (1C, 2C and 3C) is
commonly expressed as confidence levels in a continuous probability distribution. The 1P or 1C
representing a 90% confidence, 2P and 2C a 50% confidence and 3P and 3C a 10% confidence. It is
statistically incorrect to arithmetically aggregate 1P, 2P and 3P Reserves or 1C, 2C and 3C
Contingent Resources and then assign a 90%, 50% or 10% confidence to the aggregated totals.
Probabilistically derived Reserves or Resources should be statistically aggregated using monte carlo
simulation.
PRMS however recommends that for reporting purposes, assessment results should not incorporate
statistical aggregation beyond the field, property or project level. It also recognises that the arithmetic
sum of 1P Reserves or 1C Resources will be pessimistic and not representative of the true
aggregated P90 Reserves or Resources. Similarly the arithmetic sum of 3P Reserves or 3C
Resources will be optimistic and not representative of the true aggregated P10 Reserves or Resources
To illustrate the impact of arithmetic vs. statistical aggregation consider the aggregation of a number
of fields/discoveries, each having the following reported Reserves or Resources (see Table C.1).
Reserves or Contingent Resources (Gross)
Field/discovery
1P or 1C
2P or 2C
3P or 3C
Mean
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
49
89
164
100
Table C.1 Reserves or Resources for example field/discovery

The statistical aggregation of multiple fields/discoveries (assuming independence), as a result of the
central limit theorem, produces a narrowing of the P90 to P10 range. The degree of narrowing is a
function of the number of fields/discoveries that are being aggregated. Assuming, for example, that
the aggregation involved 10 such fields or discoveries, then the resulting effect of arithmetic vs.
statistical aggregation is summarised in Table C.2 below.
Reserves or Contingent Resources (Gross)

1P or 1C
2P or 2C
3P or 3C
Mean
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
Arithmetic Total
490
890
1640
1000
Statistical Total
808
987
1202
1000
Field/discovery
Table C.2 Effect of arithmetic vs. statistical aggregation

The narrowing of the P90 to P10 range as a result of the aggregation can be clearly seen and is also
illustrated in Figure C.1 below.
ECV2055
124
RPS Energy
Figure C.1 Probability density function for statistical aggregation of 10 example fields or
discoveries
2. Risked and Unrisked Aggregated Prospective Resources

The aggregation of Prospective Resources is more difficult than for Reserves or Contingent because
of the need to account for the chance of discovery. To illustrate this difficulty, consider a prospective
resource as shown in Figure C.2 below and the reported volumes as summarised Table C.3 below.
Figure C.2 Cumulative probability vs. volume for example Prospect Resources
ECV2055
125
RPS Energy
Prospect
Prospective Resources (Gross)
GPoS
P90
P50
P10
Mean
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
A (unrisked)
49
89
164
100
10%
A (risked)
20
10
Table C.3 Summary of example Prospective Resources

In this example the risked and unrisked mean volumes are clearly linked by the GPoS. Since this is
10% the risked P90, P50 and P10 volumes must equal zero, and represent failure or a dry hole.
The correct method to aggregate Prospective Resources is by statistical consolidation including the
GPoS in the consolidation. This will produce a Total risked Prospective Resource and a Total
unrisked Prospective Resource. The total unrisked resources, however, is often misunderstood and
as a result miscalculated. In the example above, the unrisked mean Prospective Resource is
100 MMstb and the risked mean Prospective Resource is 10 MMstb. If the aggregation involved
10 such prospects then the Total risked mean Prospective Resources are 100 MMstb. The common
error made is to ignore the GPoS and assume the Total unrisked mean Prospective Resources are
1000 MMstb.
The best way to visualise statistical aggregation is to use a probability tree as shown in Figure
C.3below.
Figure C.3 Example of probability tree for 2 prospects

A probability tree displays all possible outcomes (success or failure) for Prospective Resources.
Figure C.3 illustrates such a probability tree for 2 prospects. The possible outcomes are:
Both Prospect A and B are successful;

Prospect A is successful but Prospect B is a failure;
Prospect B is successful but Prospect A is a failure;
Both Prospect A and B are failures.
The probability of each of these outcomes is a function of the individual GPoSs for each prospect. If
the chances of discovery are considered to be independent then the probability of each outcome is
simply the following:
ECV2055
126
RPS Energy
Probability that both Prospect A and B are successful 10% 10% = 1%;
Probability that Prospect A is successful but Prospect B is a failure 10% 90% = 9%;
Probability that Prospect B is successful but Prospect A is a failure 10% 90% = 9%;
Probability that both Prospect A and B are failures 90% 90% = 81%.
The sum of the probabilities for each outcome must always equal 100%. The volume of Prospective
Resources that would be discovered on each branch of the probability tree is represented by a
statistical aggregation of the discovered Prospective Resources on that branch. The uppermost
branch on the probability tree in Figure C.3 represents success in both Prospect A and Prospect B.
The total resources that would be discovered if this outcome occurred (the probability of this occurring
is 1%) must be calculated by statistical aggregation. The range of resources for this outcome is
displayed on Figure C.3. The other 2 success outcomes involve either Prospect A or Prospect B.
In the example above shown by Figure C.3, in the event of success, there are 3 possible outcomes.
In one outcome the mean volume discovered would be 200 MMstb while in both of the other
successful outcomes the mean volume discovered would be 100 MMstb. The total discovered mean
volume would therefore be somewhere between these 2 numbers. The true expected value is derived
by calculating the probability weighted average volume discovered in the 3 success outcomes. In this
case the unrisked discovered volume would be 105 MMstb.
If we extend the aggregation to all 10 prospects then the number of branches on the tree (or
combinations of success and failure) would be 1024, where 1 branch would represent all 10 prospects
failing and the other 1023 branches representing at least 1 success and all combinations up to one
branch representing 10 successes. The true expectation (mean) is the probability weighted average
of the 1023 success branches. The mean volume of 1000 MMstb is the volume discovered on one
branch only and is the branch representing 10 successful prospects. The probability of this occurring
is extremely small and is in fact the least likely outcome. The true expected value, given success, is
153 MMstb not 1000 MMstb. The risked and unrisked aggregated volumes for this example are
shown in the cumulative probability plot shown in Figure C.4 below.
Figure C.4 Total risked and unrisked aggregated Prospective Resources

From the cumulative probability plot above the following total risked and unrisked Prospective
Resources can be reported (see Figure C.4)
Prospect
Total
ECV2055
Prospective Resources (Gross)
GPoS
P90
P50
P10
Mean
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
MMstb
57
128
287
153
65%
127
RPS Energy
(unrisked)
Total (risked)
79
249
100
Table C.4 Total risked and unrisked aggregated Prospective Resources
3. Consolidated Chance of Success

Each reported Prospective Resource has its own chance of discovery (GPoS) which is either totally
independent or in some cases partially dependent. The process of aggregation results in a
consolidated or aggregated chance of success that is linked to the aggregated total risked and
unrisked Prospective Resources.
3.1. Independent events
In the previous section, the total unrisked Prospective Resources have been assigned a consolidated
GPoS of 65% even though the GPoS of each was only 10%. This is the result of considering 10
independent trails each with a chance of success of 10%. The chance of 10 successes would be
equal to:
= GPoS (Prospect A) * GPoS (Prospect B) * GPoS (Prospect C) * .GPoS(Prospect J)
= 10% * 10% * 10% * ..10%
10
= (10%)^
On the other hand the chance of at least 1 success with 10 trails is equal to:
= 1 Probability of 10 failures
= 1 - { [1-GPoS(Prospect A) * 1-GPoS(Prospect B) * 1-GPoS(Prospect C) * . 1-GPoS(Prospect J)] }
= 1 - { [ 90% * 90% * 90% * .. 90%] }
= 1 - { [ 90%]^
10
= 65%
This is the chance of success that is linked to the unrisked total Prospective Resources.
3.2. Partially dependent events
In the case of partially dependent events a similar phenomenon occurs but with a restriction that the
consolidated chance of success cannot ever be greater than the common or shared dependent
probability. To illustrate this, consider that the GPoSs of 10% are all partially dependent. A common
partial dependency between prospects is the play chance that forms part of the GPoS. The GPoS
usually comprises of a play chance and a prospect specific chance. The GPoS is the product of the
two. In this methodology the play chance is by definition shared by all prospects and is a dependent
probability. The prospect specific chance by definition is specific to each individual prospect and
thereby is considered to be an independent probability.
If it were assumed that the GPoS of each prospect was equal to
= Play Chance * Prospect Specific Chance
= 50% * 20%
=10%
then the chance of any one prospect being successful is 10%. Should one prospect work then the
chance of success for every subsequent prospect would be derisked and equal to 20%. However the
consolidated chance of success can never exceed 50% no matter how many trails are involved.
ECV2055
128
RPS Energy
Figure C.5 below shows how the consolidated chance of success increases improves depending on
the number of trials for independent events (each with a GPoS of 10%) and partially dependent events
(each with a GPoS of 10% but a 50% partially dependency).
70%
65%
61%
57%
60%
52%
47%
Chance of Success
50%
41%
40%
40%
34%
42%
43%
45%
37%
34%
27%
30%
24%
19%
20%
30%
Independent Events
18%
10%
10%
10%
Partially Dependent Events
0%
0
10
12
Number of Trials
Figure C.5 Illustration of Consolidated Chance of Success
ECV2055
129
RPS Energy
APPENDIX D:
1C
2C
3C
2D seismic
3D seismic
Abex
Aggregation
API
appraisal
appraisal well
asl
B
bbl(s)
bbls/d
Bcm
block
Bg
Bgi
Bo
Boi
Bw
boe
bopd
BS&W
BTU
Bscf
bwpd
charge or migration
closure
CO2
commercial
discovery
condensate
CGR
ECV2055
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

denotes a low estimate scenario of Contingent Resources
denotes a best estimate scenario of Contingent Resources
denotes a high estimate scenario of Contingent Resources
seismic data acquired in a single traverse or series of traverses. 2D
seismic data provides single cross sections
seismic data acquired as multiple, closely spared traverses. 3D seismic
data typically provides a more detailed and accurate image of the
subsurface than 2D seismic
Decommissioning costs
The process of summing reservoir (or project) level estimates of resource
quantities to higher levels or combinations such as field, country or
company totals. Arithmetic summation may yield different results from
probabilistic aggregations of distributions
American Petroleum Institute
the phase of petroleum operations immediately following a successful
discovery. Appraisal is carried out to determine size, production rate and
the most efficient development of a field
a well drilled as part of an appraisal of a field
above sea level
billion
barrels
barrels per day
billion cubic metres
term commonly used to describe areas over which there is a petroleum
or production licence
gas formation volume factor
gas formation volume factor (initial)
oil formation volume factor
oil formation volume factor (initial)
water volume factor
Barrels of oil equivalent. Converting gas volumes to oil equivalent is
customarily done on the basis of the nominal heating content or calorific
value of the fuel. Before aggregating, the gas volumes must be
converted to the same temperature and pressure. Common industry gas
conversion factors usually range between 1 barrel of oil equivalent =
5,600 scf of gas to 6,000 scf of gas
barrels of oil per day
basic sediment and water
British Thermal Unit
billions of standard cubic feet
barrels of water per day
the movement of hydrocarbons from source rocks into reservoir rocks.
Migration can be local or can occur along distances of hundreds of
kilometres in large sedimentary basins, and is critical to a viable
petroleum system
the height from the apex of a reservoir structure to the lowest contour that
contains the reservoir structure (spill). Measurements of both the areal
closure and the distance from the apex to the lowest closing contour are
typically used for the calculations of the estimates hydrocarbon content of
a trap
Carbon dioxide
discovery of oil and gas which the Company determines to be
commercially viable for appraisal and development
liquid hydrocarbons which are sometimes produced with natural gas and
liquids derived from natural gas
Condensate Gas Ratio
130
RPS Energy
Contingent
Resources
Conventional
cP
Cretaceous
CROCK
CT
Cw
DBA
Decommission or
decommissioning
deepwater
dip
discovery
drilling campaign
dry well
DST
Decommissioning
charge
E&P
Ea
ELT
EMV
Eocene
ESD
EUR
Evert
exploration
exploration drilling
exploration well
facies
farmout
FBHP
field
formation
FPSO
FTHP
ft
ftSS
GDT
ECV2055
those quantities of petroleum estimated, as of a given date, to be

potentially recoverable from known accumulations by application of
development projects, but which are not currently considered to be
commercially recoverable due to one or more contingencies
Conventional resources are defined as hydrocarbons above a mapped
structural closure.
centipoise
the final period of the Mesozoic era ranging from approximately 65 to 144
million years ago
rock compressibility
Corporation Tax
water compressibility
decibels
the process or the procedure by which the facilities and the infrastructure
related to the production of hydrocarbon from an oil field are demobilised
and abandoned
any area of water over 250m in depth
the angle at which a rock stratum or structure is inclined from the
horizontal
an exploration well which has encountered oil and gas for the first time in
a structure
a period of time in which drilling activities are performed
a well which does not encounter hydrocarbons in economically
producible quantities
drill stem test
cost of charge associated with decommission procedures
exploration and production
areal sweep efficiency
Economic Limit Test
Expected Monetary Value
the epoch after the Palaeocene and before the Oligocene in the Tertiary
period from approximately 55.8 million to 33.9 million years ago
emergency shut down
Estimated Ultimate Recovery (Technically Recoverable pre-ELT)
vertical sweep efficiency
the phase of operations which covers the search for oil or gas by carrying
out detailed geological and geophysical surveys followed up where
appropriate by exploratory drilling
drilling carried out to determine whether oil and gas are present in a
particular area or structure
a well in an unproven area or prospect, may also be known as a "wildcat
well"
sedimentological description of rock
a term used to describe when a company sells a portion of the acreage in
a block to another company, usually in return for consideration and for
the buying company taking on a portion of the selling company's work
commitments
flowing bottom hole pressure
a geographical area under which either a single oil or gas reservoir or
multiple oil or gas reservoirs lie, all grouped on or related to the same
individual geological structure feature and/or stratigraphic condition
a body of rock identified by lithic characteristics and stratigraphic position
which is mappable at the earth's surface or traceable in the subsurface
Floating production storage and offloading
flowing tubing head pressure
feet
depth in feet below sea level
Gas Down To
131
RPS Energy
geophysical
GIP
GIIP
GOR
GPoS
GRV
GWC
H2S
HIC
hydrocarbon
infrastructure
Jurassic
IRR
KB
ka
kh
km
2
km
kPa
kr
krg
krgcl
krog
kroso
kroswi
kv
licence
licence area
m
M
MM
MMbbl
MMboe
MMstb
M$
MM$
MD
mD
3
m
3
m /d
MMscf/d
m/s
msec
mV
Mt
MMt
MOD
MPa
MPD
natural gas
NTG
NGL
offshore
ECV2055
geophysical exploration is concerned with measuring the earth's physical

properties to delineate structure, rock type and fluid content these
measurements include electrical, seismic, gravity and magnetics
Gas in Place
Gas Initially in Place
gas/oil ratio
Geological Possibility of Success
gross rock volume
gas water contact
Hydrogen sulphide
hydrogen induced cracking
a compound containing only the elements hydrogen and carbon. May
exist as a solid, a liquid or a gas. The term describes any combination of
oil, gas and/or condensate
oil and gas processing, transportation and off-take facilities
referring to a geological period of the Mesozoic Era from approximately
199 million to 145 million years ago
internal rate of return
Kelly Bushing
absolute permeability
horizontal permeability
kilometres
square kilometres
kilopascals
relative permeability
relative permeability of gas
relative permeability of gas @ connate liquid saturation
relative permeability of oil-gas
relative permeability at residual oil saturation
relative permeability to oil @ connate water saturation
vertical permeability
an exclusive right to explore for petroleum, usually granted by a national
governing body
the area covered by a licence
metre
thousand
million
million barrels
million barrels of oil equivalent
million stock tank barrels
thousand US dollars
million US dollars
measured depth
permeability in millidarcies
cubic metres
cubic metres per day
millions of standard cubic feet per day
metres per second
milliseconds
millivolts
thousands of tonnes
millions of tonnes
Money of the Day
mega pascals
Managed pressure drilling
gas, predominantly methane, occurring naturally, and often found in
association with crude petroleum
net to gross ratio
Natural Gas Liquids
that geographical area that lies seaward of the coastline
132
RPS Energy
oil
oil field
Oligocene
onshore
operator
OWC
P90
P50
P10
participating interests
Pb
Pc
petroleum
petroleum system
phase
phi
pi
PI
Play
PLEM
ppm
Probable Reserves
PLT
prospect
Prospective
Resources
prospectivity
Proved Reserves
psi
psia
psig
pwf
PVT
rb
rcf
Reserves
reservoir
Resources
RFES
ECV2055
a mixture of liquid hydrocarbons of different molecular weight

the mapped distribution of a proven oil-bearing reservoir or reservoirs
the epoch after the Eocene and before the Miocene in the Tertiary period
approximately from 34 million to 23 million years ago
that geographic area that lies landward of the coastline
the company that has legal authority to drill wells and undertake
production of oil and gas. The operator is often part of a consortium and
acts on behalf of this consortium
oil water contact
denotes a scenario which has at least a 90% probability of occurring
the proportion of exploration and production costs each party will bear
and the proportion of production each party will receive, as set out in an
operating agreement
bubble point pressure
capillary pressure
A generic name for oil and gas, including crude oil, natural gas liquids,
natural gas and their products
Geologic components and processes necessary to generate and store
hydrocarbons, including a mature source rock, migration pathway,
reservoir rock, trap and seal
a distinct state of matter in a system, e.g. liquid phase or gas phase
porosity fraction
initial reservoir pressure
productivity index
a conceptual model for a style of hydrocarbon accumulation
Pipeline end manifold
parts per million
reserves which, based on the available evidence and taking into account
technical and economic factors, have at least a 50 per cent. chance of
being produced
Production Logging Tool
an indentified trap that may contain hydrocarbons.
A potential
hydrocarbon accumulation may be described as a lead or prospect
depending on the degree of certainty in that accumulation. A prospect is
generally mature enough to be considered for drilling
those quantities of petroleum which are estimated, on a given date, to be
potentially recoverable from undiscovered accumulations
the likelihood of an area to contain potential hydrocarbon accumulations,
i.e. prospects
reserves which, based on the available evidence and taking into account
technical and economic factors, have at least a 90 per cent chance of
being produced
pounds per square inch
pounds per square inch absolute
pounds per square inch gauge
flowing bottom hole pressure
pressure volume temperature
barrel(s) of oil at reservoir conditions
reservoir cubic feet
those quantities of petroleum which are anticipated to be commercially
recoverable by application of development projects to known
accumulations from a given date forward under defined conditions,
reference should be made to the full PRMS definitions for the complete
definitions and guidelines
an underground porous and permeable formation where oil and gas has
accumulated
Contingent and Prospective Resources, unless otherwise specified
Ring Fence Expenditure Supplement
133
RPS Energy
RFT
RKB
3
rm
SCADA
SCAL
scf
scf/d
scf/stb
seal
seismic survey
SGS
SIS
3
sm
So
Sor
Sorw
Swc
Soi
source
source potential
source rock
sq km
SSCC
stb
stb/d
STOIIP
Sw
$
t
Tertiary
THP
trap
Tscf
TVDSS
TVT
TWT
Unconventional
US$
Vsh
W/m/K
WC
ECV2055
repeat formation tester

relative to kelly bushing
reservoir cubic metres
supervisory control and data acquisition
Special Core Analysis
standard cubic feet measured at 14.7 pounds per square inch and 60 F
standard cubic feet per day
standard cubic feet per stock tank barrel
a relatively impermeable rock, commonly shale, anhydrite or salt, that
forms a barrier or cap above and around reservoir rock such that fluids
cannot migrate beyond the reservoir. A seal is a critical component of a
complete petroleum system
a method by which an image of the earth's subsurface is created through
the generation of shockwaves and analysis of their reflection from rock
strata
Sequential Gaussion Simulation
Sequential Indicator Simulation
standard cubic metres
oil saturation
residual oil saturation
residual oil saturation (waterflood)
connate water saturation
irreducible oil saturation
characteristic of organic-rich rocks to contain the precursors to oil and
gas, such that the type and quality of expelled hydrocarbon can be
assessed
characteristic of a rock formation to constitute a source of oil and gas
a rock rich in organic matter which, if given the right conditions, will
generate oil or gas. Typical source rocks, usually shales or limestones,
contain at least 0.5 per cent total organic carbon (TOC), although a rich
source rock might have as much as 10 per cent organic matter. Access
to a working source rock is necessary for a complete petroleum system
square kilometre
sulphur stress corrosion cracking
stock tank barrels measured at 14.7 pounds per square inch and 60 F
stock tank barrels per day
stock tank oil initially in place
water saturation
United States Dollars
tonnes
the Tertiary Period is a geological period from approximately 65 million to
2.5 million years ago
tubing head pressure
A configuration of rocks suitable for containing hydrocarbons and sealed
by a relatively impermeable formation through which hydrocarbons will
not migrate. Traps are described as structural traps (in deformed strata
such as folds and faults) or stratigraphic traps (in areas where rock types
change, such as unconformities, pinch outs and reefs). A trap is an
essential component of a petroleum system
trillion standard cubic feet
true vertical depth (sub-sea)
true vertical thickness
two-way time
Unconventional intervals are those below structural closure in which
hydrocarbons have been demonstrated to be present or considered to be
present
United States Dollar
shale volume
watts/metre/ K
water cut
134
RPS Energy
WGIIP
WOSPS PLEM
WUT
gb
ob
w
ECV2055
Wet Gas Initially in Place

West of Shetland Pipeline System; Pipeline End Manifold
Water Up To
porosity
viscosity
viscosity of gas
viscosity of oil
viscosity of water
135
RPS Energy
APPENDIX E:
SPE/WPC/AAPG/SPEE RESERVE/RESOURCE DEFINITIONS

62
(Extracts from Petroleum Resources Management System 2007 , Source: Society of Petroleum
Engineers. See website for a glossary of terms)
The estimation of petroleum resource quantities involves the interpretation of volumes and values that
have an inherent degree of uncertainty. These quantities are associated with development projects at
various stages of design and implementation. Use of a consistent classification system enhances
comparisons between projects, groups of projects, and total company portfolios according to forecast
production profiles and recoveries. Such a system must consider both technical and commercial
factors that impact the projects economic feasibility, its productive life, and its related cash flows
Petroleum Resources Classification Framework
Petroleum is defined as a naturally occurring mixture consisting of hydrocarbons in the gaseous,
liquid, or solid phase. Petroleum may also contain non-hydrocarbons, common examples of which are
carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide and sulfur. In rare cases, non-hydrocarbon content could
be greater than 50%.
The term resources as used herein is intended to encompass all quantities of petroleum naturally
occurring on or within the Earths crust, discovered and undiscovered (recoverable and
unrecoverable), plus those quantities already produced. Further, it includes all types of petroleum
whether currently considered conventional or unconventional.
Figure D.1 is a graphical representation of the SPE/WPC/AAPG/SPEE resources classification
system. The system defines the major recoverable resources classes: Production, Reserves,
Contingent Resources, and Prospective Resources, as well as Unrecoverable petroleum.
Figure D.1 Resources Classification Framework

62
http://www.spe.org/industry/docs/Petroleum_Resources_Management_System_2007.pdf
ECV2055
136
RPS Energy
The Range of Uncertainty reflects a range of estimated quantities potentially recoverable from an
accumulation by a project, while the vertical axis represents the Chance of Commerciality, that is, the
chance that the project that will be developed and reach commercial producing status. The following
definitions apply to the major subdivisions within the resources classification:
TOTAL PETROLEUM INITIALLY-IN-PLACE is that quantity of petroleum that is estimated
to exist originally in naturally occurring accumulations. It includes that quantity of petroleum
that is estimated, as of a given date, to be contained in known accumulations prior to
production plus those estimated quantities in accumulations yet to be discovered (equivalent
to total resources).
DISCOVERED PETROLEUM INITIALLY-IN-PLACE is that quantity of petroleum that is
estimated, as of a given date, to be contained in known accumulations prior to production.
PRODUCTION is the cumulative quantity of petroleum that has been recovered at
a given date. While all recoverable resources are estimated and production is
measured in terms of the sales product specifications, raw production (sales plus
non-sales) quantities are also measured and required to support engineering
analyses based on reservoir voidage.
Multiple development projects may be applied to each known accumulation, and each project will
recover an estimated portion of the initially-in-place quantities. The projects shall be subdivided into
Commercial and Sub-Commercial, with the estimated recoverable quantities being classified as
Reserves and Contingent Resources respectively, as defined below.
RESERVES are those quantities of petroleum anticipated to be commercially
recoverable by application of development projects to known accumulations from a
given date forward under defined conditions. Reserves must further satisfy four
criteria: they must be discovered, recoverable, commercial, and remaining (as of
the evaluation date) based on the development project(s) applied. Reserves are
further categorized in accordance with the level of certainty associated with the
estimates and may be sub-classified based on project maturity and/or
characterized by development and production status.
CONTINGENT RESOURCES are those quantities of petroleum estimated, as of a
given date, to be potentially recoverable from known accumulations, but the
applied project(s) are not yet considered mature enough for commercial
development due to one or more contingencies. Contingent Resources may
include, for example, projects for which there are currently no viable markets, or
where commercial recovery is dependent on technology under development, or
where evaluation of the accumulation is insufficient to clearly assess commerciality.
Contingent Resources are further categorized in accordance with the level of
certainty associated with the estimates and may be subclassified based on project
maturity and/or characterized by their economic status. See section Project
Maturity Sub-classes.
UNDISCOVERED PETROLEUM INITIALLY-IN-PLACE is that quantity of petroleum
estimated, as of a given date, to be contained within accumulations yet to be discovered.
PROSPECTIVE RESOURCES are those quantities of petroleum estimated, as of a
given date, to be potentially recoverable from undiscovered accumulations by
application of future development projects. Prospective Resources have both an
associated chance of discovery and a chance of development. Prospective
Resources are further subdivided in accordance with the level of certainty
associated with recoverable estimates assuming their discovery and development
and may be sub-classified based on project maturity.
UNRECOVERABLE is that portion of Discovered or Undiscovered Petroleum Initially-inPlace quantities which is estimated, as of a given date, not to be recoverable by future
development projects. A portion of these quantities may become recoverable in the future
as commercial circumstances change or technological developments occur; the remaining
portion may never be recovered due to physical/chemical constraints represented by
subsurface interaction of fluids and reservoir rocks.
ECV2055
137
RPS Energy
Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR) is not a resources category, but a term that may be applied to any
accumulation or group of accumulations (discovered or undiscovered) to define those quantities of
petroleum estimated, as of a given date, to be potentially recoverable under defined technical and
commercial conditions plus those quantities already produced (total of recoverable resources).
In specialized areas, such as basin potential studies, alternative terminology has been used; the total
resources may be referred to as Total Resource Base or Hydrocarbon Endowment. Total recoverable
or EUR may be termed Basin Potential. The sum of Reserves, Contingent Resources, and
Prospective Resources may be referred to as remaining recoverable resources. When such terms
are used, it is important that each classification component of the summation also be provided.
Moreover, these quantities should not be aggregated without due consideration of the varying degrees
of technical and commercial risk involved with their classification.
Range of Uncertainty
The range of uncertainty of the recoverable and/or potentially recoverable volumes may be
represented by either deterministic scenarios or by a probability distribution. When the range of
uncertainty is represented by a probability distribution, a low, best, and high estimate shall be provided
such that:
There should be at least a 90% probability (P90) that the quantities actually recovered will
equal or exceed the low estimate.
equal or exceed the best estimate.
equal or exceed the high estimate.
When using the deterministic scenario method, typically there should also be low, best, and high
estimates, where such estimates are based on qualitative assessments of relative uncertainty using
consistent interpretation guidelines. Under the deterministic incremental (risk-based) approach,
quantities at each level of uncertainty are estimated discretely and separately.
Reserves Categories
The following summarizes the definitions for each Reserves category in terms of both the deterministic
incremental approach and scenario approach and also provides the probability criteria if probabilistic
methods are applied.
Proved Reserves are those quantities of petroleum, which, by analysis of geoscience and
engineering data, can be estimated with reasonable certainty to be commercially recoverable,
from a given date forward, from known reservoirs and under defined economic conditions,
operating methods, and government regulations. If deterministic methods are used, the term
reasonable certainty is intended to express a high degree of confidence that the quantities will
be recovered. If probabilistic methods are used, there should be at least a 90% probability
that the quantities actually recovered will equal or exceed the estimate.
Probable Reserves are those additional Reserves which analysis of geoscience and
engineering data indicate are less likely to be recovered than Proved Reserves but more
certain to be recovered than Possible Reserves. It is equally likely that actual remaining
quantities recovered will be greater than or less than the sum of the estimated Proved plus
Probable Reserves (2P). In this context, when probabilistic methods are used, there should
be at least a 50% probability that the actual quantities recovered will equal or exceed the 2P
estimate.
Possible Reserves are those additional reserves which analysis of geoscience and
engineering data suggest are less likely to be recoverable than Probable Reserves. The total
quantities ultimately recovered from the project have a low probability to exceed the sum of
Proved plus Probable plus Possible (3P) Reserves, which is equivalent to the high estimate
scenario. In this context, when probabilistic methods are used, there should be at least a 10%
probability that the actual quantities recovered will equal or exceed the 3P estimate.
Use of consistent terminology (Figure B.1) promotes clarity in communication of evaluation results.
For Reserves, the general cumulative terms low/best/high estimates are denoted as 1P/2P/3P,
respectively. The associated incremental quantities are termed Proved, Probable and Possible.
Reserves are a subset of, and must be viewed within context of, the complete resources classification
system. While the categorization criteria are proposed specifically for Reserves, in most cases, they
ECV2055
138
RPS Energy
can be equally applied to Contingent and Prospective Resources conditional upon their satisfying the
criteria for discovery and/or development.
For Contingent Resources, the general cumulative terms low/best/high estimates are denoted as
1C/2C/3C respectively. For Prospective Resources, the general cumulative terms low/best/high
estimates still apply. No specific terms are defined for incremental quantities within Contingent and
Prospective Resources.
Project Maturity Sub-classes
As illustrated in Figure B.2, development projects (and their associated recoverable quantities) may be
sub-classified according to project maturity levels and the associated actions (business decisions)
required to move a project toward commercial production.
Figure D.2 Sub-classes based on Project Maturity
Development Pending: A discovered accumulation where project activities are ongoing to justify
commercial development in the foreseeable future.
The project is seen to have reasonable potential for eventual commercial development, to the extent
that further data acquisition (eg drilling, seismic data) and/or evaluations are currently ongoing with a
view to confirming that the project is commercially viable and providing the basis for selection of an
appropriate development plan. The critical contingencies have been identified and are reasonably
expected to be resolved within a reasonable time frame. Note that disappointing appraisal/evaluation
results could lead to are-classification of the project to On Hold or Nor Viable status.
The project decision gate is the decision to undertake further data acquisition and/or studies
designed to move the project to a level of technical and commercial maturity at which a decision can
be made to proceed with development and production.
ECV2055
139
RPS Energy
Development Unclarified or On Hold: A discovered accumulation where project activities are on

hold and/or where justification as a commercial development may be subject to significant delay.
The project is seen to have potential for eventual commercial development, but further
appraisal/evaluation activities are on hold pending the removal of significant contingencies external to
the project, or substantial further appraisal/evaluation activities are required to clarify the potential for
eventual commercial development. Development may be subject to a significant time delay. Note that
a change in circumstances, such that there is no longer a reasonable expectation that a critical
contingency can be removed in the foreseeable future, for example, could lead to a re-classification of
the project to Not Viable status.
The project decision gate is the decision to either proceed with additional evaluation designed to
clarify the potential for eventual commercial development or to temporarily suspend or delay further
activities pending resolution of external contingencies.
ECV2055
140

CPRNovember2013 Hurricane Energy

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CPRNovember2013 Hurricane Energy

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Directors

Hurricane Energy plc

been no material changes since this date.

Hurricane Energy CPR

Changes since the 18

April 2013 CPR addressed in this

Some rescheduling of the proposed well drilling program.

Hurricane Energy CPR

Gross (100% basis) and Net

Gross (100% basis) and Net

In-place volumes are all quoted on an on block basis.

Table 1 Summary of Discovered In-Place Volumes and Contingent Resources as of 1 October

Hurricane Energy CPR

Lancaster Base Case

Table 2 Lancaster Base Case Oil Price Forecast

Net Hurricane Share, (US$ / UK Million , MOD)

Conventional Only Case

Base Case (5 year lease and buy out option)

Table 3 Lancaster Valuation as at 1 October 2013

Hurricane Energy CPR

Conventional Only Case

Base Case (5 year lease and buy out option)

Table 4 Lancaster Contingent Resources as at 1 October 2013

Hurricane Energy CPR

Gross (100% basis) and Net

Gross (100% basis) and Net

Total (Unrisked if all

Total (Unrisked if all

Total (Unrisked given at

Total (Unrisked given at

Total (Unrisked if all

Total (Unrisked if all

Total (Unrisked given at

Total (Unrisked given at

In-place volumes are all quoted on an on block basis.

Table 5 - Summary of Undiscovered In-Place Volumes and Prospective Resources

Hurricane Energy CPR

Hurricane Energy CPR

Hurricane Energy plc

Hurricane Energy CPR

Evaluation West of Shetland Assets

REPORT TITLE: Evaluation West of Shetland Assets

JHB, MW, IL, IG, GJB, AL,

Hurricane Energy CPR

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1

SUMMARY OF ASSETS ................................................................................................................. 7

Contingent Resources ..................................................................................................................... 11

Classification of Assets .......................................................................................................... 11

Arithmetic vs statistical aggregation ...................................................................................... 12

TECHNICAL EVALUATION .......................................................................................................... 15

LANCASTER DISCOVERY ........................................................................................................... 17

Lancaster Geological Model .................................................................................................. 22

7.3.1 Reservoir Properties ........................................................................................................................ 24

Lancaster Volumetrics ........................................................................................................... 26

7.4.1 Contacts .......................................................................................................................................... 26

Reservoir Engineering ........................................................................................................... 30

7.5.1 PVT/Fluids Data............................................................................................................................... 30

Lancaster Drilling and Completion Design ............................................................................ 38

Lancaster Risk Assessment .................................................................................................. 41

Reservoir Properties ........................................................................................................................ 43

Whirlwind Volumetrics ........................................................................................................... 44

Reservoir Engineering ........................................................................................................... 46

Recoverable Volumes ........................................................................................................... 49

Hurricane Energy CPR