Egl BF 16 04 2012 NPC

CONTRACT N 2121040
EVALUATION OF COAL BED METHANE RESERVES AND RESOURCES

LORRAINE AND NORD PAS DE CALAIS PERMIT AREA
FINAL PRESENTATION 16/04/2012
Rueil Malmaison, April 16th 2012

232, avenue Napolon Bonaparte
PB 213 - 92502 Rueil-Malmaison France
Phone: +33 1 47 08 80 00 Fax: + 33 1 47 08 41 85 - info@beicip.com www.beicip.com
INTRODUCTION

Agenda
Introduction Context Objectives.09:40-09:50
Reserves Resources categorization.09:50-10:00

Workflow General parameters (k, Pi,Pabdn,gas composition,)....10:00-10:15
Geological models
IGIP evaluation
Resources evaluation
Lorraine Resources..14:00-15:30
Geological models
IGIP evaluation
Resources evaluation
Folshviller Model...15:30-16:30
Conclusions16:30-17:30
April 16th 2012
Evaluation of Coal Bed Methane Resources for Lorraine and NPdC basins
@Beicip-Franlab
Nord Pas de Calais Resources..10:15-12:30
Introduction - Objectives
permits held by EGL in the Nord Pas-de-Calais

and Lorraine basins, is to provide a technical
evaluation including geological, geophysical,
reservoir engineering, field development best
estimates, as well as the review of an economic
model elaborated by EGL. EGL has been
conducting a comprehensive geological modeling
exercise for the two coal basins where it has
ongoing CBM projects.
Beicip-Franlab will deliver a letter outlining the
following quantities, if any:
Volumes of gas reserves in the P1, P2, and
P3 categories, and their corresponding
economic valuation, if applicable
Volumes of gas resources in the 1C, 2C, and
3C categories, with an economic valuation
methodology yet to be defined, if applicable
April 16th 2012
@Beicip-Franlab
The objective of the Study, concerning the
Resources
For both Lorraine and NPdC basins there is no proved, probable or

possible economical development of CBM.
Resources could not be of the Reserves category.
Resources categories:
Contingent Resources
and/or Prospective Resources
@Beicip-Franlab
Source: PRMS Guidelines Nov 2011
April 16th 2012
Contingent Resources
Demonstrated by drilling, testing, sampling and/or logging hydrocarbon gas content
(e.g., coal sample or gas flow) and coal thickness sufficient to establish the existence
of a significant quantity of potentially moveable hydrocarbons (i.e., there should be
data indicating sufficient permeability for flow within the coal seam).
If not sufficient to establish the existence of a significant quantity of

potentially moveable hydrocarbons => Prospective Resources
April 16th 2012
@Beicip-Franlab
Gas rates may be undemonstrated or uneconomic, gas composition may or may not
support marketability, significant distance from existing well locations that have
demonstrated commercial potential, outside coal fairway or acceptable depth limits
(typically 200 to 1000 m) may require as yet unproven well technology, (e.g., untried
stimulation techniques or horizontal/multilateral wells), outside areas that can be
accessed legally (e.g., protected land), development plan immature or sub economic,
market not assured, lack of approvals.
EGL Project: Resources

categorization
Lorraine basin
Some Prospective resources
within Alsting anticline
Perimeter:
Minimum distance to major faults:
3C: 0 m
2C: 25 m
1C: 50 m
No minimum distance to major

faults
at a distance from mine galleries
and CMM exploitation determined
by the 3H study: the volume
above the Mur du houiller
exploit was discarded.
300-2000 m TVD depth interval
Net pay cut off= 30 cm
@Beicip-Franlab
Minimum distance to mining area:

100m and below 900 m TVD
300-2000 m TVD depth interval
Net pay cut off= 30 cm (already
included in Petrel model)
Nord Pas de Calais basin

No Prospective category
Perimeter:
April 16th 2012
1C 2C 3C
1C=P90
2C=P50
3C=P10
The range of uncertainty 1C/2C/3C reflects a range of estimated quantities

potentially recoverable from an accumulation (or group of accumulations)
by a specific, defined, project.
Categories are differentiated by the parameters uncertainty captured by a
stochastic distribution.
To capture the influence of depth, calculations will be done for 3 ranges of
@Beicip-Franlab
depth: 300-1000 m TVD; 1000-1500 m TVD; 1500-2000 m TVD.

Main differences between these ranges will be permeability, hence recovery
factor.
April 16th 2012
Workflow for EGL

CBM resources audit
IGIP
distribution
Petrel model audit

Vcoal evaluation
Uncertainties evaluation
Study of Gas Content distribution

vs depth and area
Evaluation of density distribution
P90-P50-P10 using Monte Carlo
methodology
Resources
distribution
@Beicip-Franlab
Vcoal
distribution
Study of Isotherm curves

Bibliography for k and evaluation
of a k vs depth
For Lorraine and East NPdC
evaluation of a connected aquifer
Evaluation of Rf distribution
through MB or Isotherm curves
P90-P50-P10 using Monte Carlo
methodology
April 16th 2012
K versus Depth (Analogs - Bibliography)
For Lorraine: 1,7 mD @ 916,5 mTVD (Folshviller 2)

For NPdC: 1mD @ 500mTVD (Belgium coal)
April 16th 2012
@Beicip-Franlab
Next step: Normalization of the curves in order to get:
10
K (mD) P90/P50/P10
300-1000 mTVD
1000-1500 mTVD
1500-2000 mTVD
Lorraine Folquemont
1,3/2,2/5,0
0,5/0,9/1,3
0,15/0,3/0,5
0,4/1,0/3,0
0,1/0,15/0,4
0,02/0,05/0,1
Lorraine Alsting
NPdC
April 16th 2012
@Beicip-Franlab
K versus Depth Lorraine/NPdC
11
Gas composition
Lorraine:
Source: INERIS and DMT Diebling ST1 gas analysis
89% methane, 3,8% ethane, 1,2% propane, 6% CO2
=> Gross Resources as well as Net Resources could be evaluated
NPdC:
Source: unknown
To be investigated
@Beicip-Franlab
=> Resources will be defined as Gross Resources
April 16th 2012
12
Initial reservoir (cleats) pressure
Lorraine:
Only one available pressure data derived from Folshviller 2 testing.
:: 1266 psia @ 974 mTVD (694 mss)
=> gradient (from ground level ~ +280 mss) = 0,914 (0,391 psi/ft)
NPdC:
@Beicip-Franlab
No measurements in the data base.

An hydrostatic pressure gradient (from ground level ~ +40 mss) is assumed.
April 16th 2012
13
Abandonment pressure
Prosper pressure loss calculations

for 1 MMscf/d
and 15 psig wellhead pressure
no moisture content in wellhead gas (probably optimistic, at least for Lorraine)
Correlations give 2,5 to 3 bbl/MMscf for 35C and 30-50 psig
7 inch casing + 2 7/8 inch tubing (for Lorraine only)
For both Lorraine and NPdC:
@Beicip-Franlab
300-1000 mTVD: 32 psia

1000-1500 mTVD: 33-34 psia
1500-2000 mTVD: 34-36 psia
April 16th 2012
14
NORD PAS DE CALAIS GEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Contents
Overview of Nord-Pas-de-Calais Area
Review of structural modeling

Review of property modeling
Conclusions on modeling review
Coal Volume computations
@Beicip-Franlab
Recommendations
April 16th 2012
16
Contents

@Beicip-Franlab
Recommendations
April 16th 2012
17
@Beicip-Franlab
General modeling workflow
April 16th 2012
18

Poissonnire Permit
Bray Model Area
Lens Model Area
Valenciennois Permit
Dsire
Model
Area
Valenciennois
Model Area
Sud Midi Permit
April 16th 2012
@Beicip-Franlab
Dsire Permit
19
Bruay-Bouvigny
Study area limits VS Permits : Bruay-Bouvigny
608000
612000
616000
620000
624000
628000
632000
320000
320000
604000
312000
316000
312000
316000
Bruay model
304000
304000
308000
308000
Permit Poissonire
Permit Poissonire : 216,4 km2

Permit Sud Midi : 125,0 km2
-23,4%
292000
292000
296000
296000
300000
Volumes BF: Bruay model : 341,4 km2
300000
Permit Sud Midi
Volumes EGL: Bruay model : 451,1 km2
604000
608000
612000
0
616000
2000
620000
4000
6000
8000
624000
628000
632000
10000m
1:190735
Symbol legend
Permit Sud-Midi Bruay
@Beicip-Franlab
Bruay Model
Permit Poissonire Bruay
April 16th 2012
20
Desiree
658000
660000
662000
664000
666000
668000
670000
302000
Volumes EGL: Desiree model : 192,8 km2
298000
298000
300000
300000
302000
Desiree model
304000
304000
Study area limits VS Permits : Desiree

656000
296000
294000
294000
292000
290000
290000
296000
292000
Permit Poissonnire
288000
656000
658000
660000
662000
0
1000
664000
2000
3000
666000
4000

Permit Desiree: 3,5 km2
-51.9%
288000
Permit Desiree
Volumes BF: Desiree model : 92,9 km2
668000
670000
5000m
1:103017
Symbol legend
Permit Poissonire
@Beicip-Franlab
Desiree Model
Permit Desiree
April 16th 2012
21
Lens
Study area limits VS Permits : Lens
632000
636000
640000
644000
648000
652000
656000
316000
308000
308000
312000
312000
316000
Lens model
304000
Volumes BF: Lens model : 614 km2

Permit Sud Midi : 244,0 km2
-17%
288000
288000
Permit Sud Midi
292000
292000
296000
296000
300000
300000
304000
Permit Poissonire
Volumes EGL: Lens model : 739,8 km2
632000
636000
640000
0
2000
644000
4000
648000
6000
8000
652000
656000
10000m
1:201205
Symbol legend
Permit_Poissonire_Lens
@Beicip-Franlab
Lens model
Sud_Midi_Permit_Lens
April 16th 2012
22
Valenciennois
672000
676000
680000
684000
688000
692000
696000
312000
308000
304000
304000
Permit Valenciennois
Permit Poissonnire
288000
288000
Volumes EGL: Valenciennois model : 573,8 km2
Volumes BF: Valenciennois model : 489,4 km2

Permit Desiree: 52,4 km2
Permit Valenciennois: 423,1 km2
292000
292000
296000
296000
300000
300000
308000
Permit Desiree
672000
676000
680000
0
2000
684000
4000
688000
6000
8000
692000
696000
-15,4%
284000
284000
312000
Valenciennois model
316000
316000
Study area limits VS Permits : Valenciennois
10000m
1:201205
Symbol legend
@Beicip-Franlab
Valenciennois Model
Permit Valenciennois
Permit Desiree
Permit Poissonnire Valenciennois
April 16th 2012
23
Model Area Border Effects
Modeled areas are somewhat

inconsistent in border areas due to
limitation of data to Model Areas
during modeling.
@Beicip-Franlab
Recommend to model full NPC

area in one model in future versions.
April 16th 2012
24
Contents

@Beicip-Franlab
Recommendations
April 16th 2012
25
Modeling of the Cran de Retour
The overturned syncline between the Faille du Midi and the Cran de Retour
Fault is not overturned in the Model (Dsire Model Area)
Mur Houiller Exploit
Mur Exploited Houiller
Cran de Retour
Faille du Midi
Prevost Flt
@Beicip-Franlab
Barrois Flt (Nord)

Barrois Flt (Sud)
April 16th 2012
26
Namurien thinning in Bruay-Bouvigny
Geological cross-section N1 : Bruay-Bouvigny

56000
57000
58000
59000
60000
61000
62000
63000
64000
65000
66000
67000
68000
69000
70000
71000
73000
72000
73000
72000
55000
-800
-800
-1600
-1600
-2400
-2400
Zones (hierarchy) from 'BRUAY first/Copy of 3D grid' 2
59000
60000
61000
62000
0
63000
1000
64000
2000
65000
3000
66000
4000
67000
68000
5000m
1:78125
April 16th 2012
69000
70000
71000
@Beicip-Franlab
-3200
-4000
-4800
-5600
58000
-5600
57000
-4800
56000
-4000
55000
-3200
Dinantien
Westphalien C above Gavion
Below Gavion
Westphalien C below Gavion
Westphalien B below Gavion
Zone 3
Westphalien A below Gavion
Namurien Sup below Gavion
Zone 4
Namurien Inf below Gavion
Dinantien
Zone 5
Westphalien C below Provost
Westphalien B below Provost
Zone 6
Westphalien A below Provost
Namurien Sup below Provost
Zone 7
Namurien2 isochore
Dinantien
27
Contents

@Beicip-Franlab
Recommendations
April 16th 2012
28
Differencies on upscaling method
Globally, the discretization method (with or without bias) of Coal

percentage property show the same results except for Bruay-Bouvigny
area where the bias on lithofacies induce a over-estimation.
The layering resolution must be defined from log information. A layering of

25m will probably more adapted than 50m.
EGL
(BIAS)
Desiree
Lens
Valenciennois
Logs
2.78
1.55
3.02
2.19
Upscaled
2.87
1.34
2.88
2.16
Logs
2.78
1.55
3.02
2.19
Upscaled
2.78
1.36
2.85
2.19
@Beicip-Franlab
BF
(No BIAS)
Bruay
April 16th 2012
29
Continuity of Modeled Coal Occurrence :

Valenciennois
We consider the more continuous presence and percentage of coal in

layers to be the more representative geological concept, hence have opted
for using large range variograms respecting well data.
Kriging
April 16th 2012
@Beicip-Franlab
GRFS
30
Continuity of Modeled Coal Occurrence :

Bruay-Bouvigny
Min
0.0
Min
0.0
Max
0.2406
Max
0.2254
Mean
0.0245
Mean
0.0283
Geological cross-section N3 : NTG

574000
576000
578000
580000
582000
584000
586000
Geological cross-section N3 : NTG

588000
590000
592000
572000
578000
580000
582000
584000
586000
588000
590000
592000
500
500
576000
500
500
590000
592000
-500
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000
-3500
-1000
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000
-3500
588000
572000
574000
576000
578000
580000
0
1000
582000
2000
3000
584000
4000
586000
5000m
1:97656
588000
590000
592000
-3500
586000
0.225
0.2
0.175
0.15
0.125
0.1
0.075
0.05
0.025
0
-3000
5000m
Net/Gross
-2500
1:97656
584000
4000
-2000
3000
-1500
582000
2000
-3500
1000
-3000
580000
0
-2500
578000
-2000
576000
-1500
574000
-1000
-1000
0.225
0.2
0.175
0.15
0.125
0.1
0.075
0.05
0.025
0
-500
-500
Net/Gross
572000
April 16th 2012
574000
@Beicip-Franlab
572000
31
Observations on Structural Modeling

Review
Wells and 5 main Cross-sections (from CdF -300 map) taken into account
We note most wells do not touch the lower zones such as Dinantien and
Namurien, hence less structural control exists.
Faults are generally properly modeled and their extension appears in good
agreement with geological concepts.
The overturned syncline is not properly represented, however impact is low
as it has been mostly exploited in conventional mining in the past.
@Beicip-Franlab
Thinning of Namurien formation in Bruay-Bouvigny model.
April 16th 2012
32
Observations of Property Modeling

Review
Discretization method:
The upscaling method will not affect drastically the coal percentage at wells.
Simulation
The geostatistic method used to extend the coal percentage will affect only
the coal distribution in layers.
@Beicip-Franlab
A simulation based on kriging appears more geological than the pixelbased gaussian simulation.
April 16th 2012
33
Contents

@Beicip-Franlab
Recommendations
April 16th 2012
34
Zone definition for volumes

Geological cross-section N3 : Zones for OOIP
14400
15200
16000
16800
17600
18400
19200
20000
20800
21600
22400
23200
24000
24800
25600
26400
13600
General discrete
-200
-400
-600
-600
-800
-800
-400
-1000
-1000
-200
Above Topo
Topo to -100m
Topo to -200m
Topo to -300m
Topo to -400m
Topo to -500m
Topo to -600m
Topo to -700m
Topo to -800m
Topo to -900m
Topo to -1000m
Topo to -1100m
Topo to -1200m
Topo to -1300m
Topo to -1400m
Topo to -1500m
Topo to -1600m
Topo to -1700m
Topo to -1800m
Topo to -1900m
Topo to -2000m
16000
17600
18400
19200
20000
20800
21600
22400
23200
24000
24800
25600
26400
-1400
-400
-800
16000
16800
17600
18400
19200
20000
20800
21600
22400
23200
24000
-2000
13600
14400
15200
16000
16800
17600
18400
0
19200
500
20000
1000
1500
20800
2000
2500m
21600
22400
23200
24000
24800
25600
26400
500
1000
1500
2000
2500m
1:57709
1:57709
April 16th 2012
24800
25600
26400
@Beicip-Franlab
15200
-2000
14400
-1800
13600
-2000
-1600
-2000
-1000
-1200
-1800
-1400
-1400
-1800
Above Topo
Topo to -100m
Topo to -200m
Topo to -300m
Topo to -400m
Topo to -500m
Topo to -600m
Topo to -700m
Topo to -800m
Topo to -900m
Topo to -1000m
Topo to -1100m
Topo to -1200m
Topo to -1300m
Topo to -1400m
Topo to -1500m
Topo to -1600m
Topo to -1700m
Topo to -1800m
Topo to -1900m
Topo to -2000m
-1200
-1600
-1000
-1800
-1600
General discrete
-800
-1600
-600
-600
-400
-1400
-200
-200
16800
-1200
15200
14400
-1200
Geological cross-section N3 : Zones for OOIP

13600
35
Volumetric results
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Valenciennois
Lens
BF
Valenciennois
Lens
Dsire
Bruay
Nord-Pas-de-Calais
April 16th 2012
BF (106m3)
7122
7432
336
4498
19388
Dsire
Bruay
EGL
EGL (106m3)
8237
8452
493
6074
23256
%
14%
12%
32%
26%
@Beicip-Franlab
106m3
(All Permits combined)
36
Contents

@Beicip-Franlab
Recommendations
April 16th 2012
37
Recommendations
As the models are fit-for-purpose to define volumetrics the stratigraphic

architecture is not necessarily honored.
These models can be used to estimate a coal volume but we recommend

not to consider the modeled coal layer orientation as basis for
development planning.
We recommend in future version of the models to model the full NPC area
@Beicip-Franlab
as one model in order to allow inclusion of data (for structure and

properties) from one area to the next and avoid border effects in structural
modeling.
April 16th 2012
38
NORD PAS DE CALAIS RESOURCES

Agenda
Gas Content Analysis
Density.
Isotherm (Langmuir curves).
Recovery Factor.
GIP results..
@Beicip-Franlab
Resources results..
April 16th 2012
Evaluation of Coal Bed Methane Reserves and Resources
40
Gas Content analysis
No clear correlation : Gas Content vs. Depth
Statistic approach per Layer Stratigraphic

(values from Ineris report)
Westphalien A
Gas content WA :
P90 = 3,12
P50 = 6,45
P10 = 12,26
m3/Ton
m3/Ton
m3/Ton
Best Fit Distribution:

Max Extreme
Likeliest = 5,34
Scale = 2,69
April 16th 2012
@Beicip-Franlab
EGL Value = 6,89 m3/ton
41
Westphalien B
Gas content WB :
P90 = 6,48 m3/Ton
P50 = 8,50 m3/Ton
P10 = 10,42 m3/Ton
@Beicip-Franlab

Logistic
Mean = 8,61
Scale = 0,90
April 16th 2012
42
Westphalien C
Gas content WC :
P90 = 5,00 m3/Ton
P50 = 7,50 m3/Ton
P10 = 11,00 m3/Ton
@Beicip-Franlab

Max Extreme
Likeliest = 6,3
Scale = 1,92
April 16th 2012
43
Namurien
Gas content Namu.
@Beicip-Franlab

Constant = 6,00 m3/ton
April 16th 2012
44
Density
No information about density except the value of 1,40 ton/m3 from

Charbonnage de France
EGL Value = 1,40 ton/m3
Beicip-Franlab assumptions:
@Beicip-Franlab
Triangular distribution:
Min
= 1,38 ton/m3
Max
= 1,42 ton/m3
Likeliest = 1,40 ton/m3
April 16th 2012
45
Isotherm (Langmuir Curves)
Isotherm WA
Coal Saturation:
Gas content (m3/ton)
25
20
Min
= 20%
Max
= 80%
Likeliest = 30%
15
10
5
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Pressure (bar)
Moyenne totale
Isotherm (Langmuir regression)

Vl (m3/ton)
Pl (bar)
WA
24
10
April 16th 2012
@Beicip-Franlab
Langmuir regression
46
Isotherm WB
Coal Saturation:
25
20
Min
= 35%
Max
= 45%
Likeliest = 60%
15
10
5
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Pressure (bar)
Moyenne totale

Vl (m3/ton)
Pl (bar)
WB
24
10
April 16th 2012
@Beicip-Franlab
Langmuir regression
47
Isotherm WC
Coal Saturation:
25
20
Min
= 25%
Max
= 40%
Likeliest = 60%
15
10
5
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Pressure (bar)
WC

Vl (m3/ton)
Pl (bar)
WC
21,5
9,5
April 16th 2012
@Beicip-Franlab
Langmuir regression
48
Ultimate Recovery Factor

(Langmuir isotherm approach)
EGL Assumptions
= 5 psig (psia ?)
= 10 psia (psig ?)
= 1m3/ton
> 86%
@Beicip-Franlab
Wellhead Pressure
Abandonment Pressure
Gas content @ abandonment pressure
Fraction of gas recovered
April 16th 2012
49
Ultimate Recovery Factor

(Langmuir isotherm approach)
Rf from Langmuir isotherm
WA
Abandonment pressure (absolute psi)
Abandonment pressure (absolute bar)
Abandonment Gas content
P90= 3,12
Gas content (Sample)
P50= 6,45
P10= 12,26
April 16th 2012
EGL Ab. Press.

10
0,7
1,57
50%
76%
87%
300 - 1000 m
32
2,21
4,34
0%
33%
65%
1000-1500 m
33
2,27
4,45
0%
31%
64%
1500 - 2000 m
34
2,34
4,56
0%
29%
63%
WB
P90= 6,48
P50= 8,50
P10= 10,42
EGL
1,57
76%
82%
85%
300 - 1000 m
4,34
33%
49%
58%
1000-1500 m
4,45
31%
48%
57%
1500 - 2000 m
4,56
30%
46%
56%
WC
P90= 5,00
P50= 7,50
P10= 11,00
EGL
1,48
70%
80%
87%
300 - 1000 m
4,05
19%
46%
63%
1000-1500 m
4,15
17%
45%
62%
1500 - 2000 m
4,25
15%
43%
61%
@Beicip-Franlab
Nord Pas de Calais
50
Recovery Factor
after 25 years of Production
(Material Balance approach)
Distribution uncertainty on: Coal saturation
Coal Saturation WB:
Coal Saturation WC:
Min
= 20%
Max
= 80%
Likeliest = 30%
Min
= 35%
Max
= 45%
Likeliest = 60%
Min
= 25%
Max
= 40%
Likeliest = 60%
@Beicip-Franlab
Coal Saturation WA:
April 16th 2012
51
Recovery Factor
Distribution uncertainty on: K aquifer & K coal
Triangular Distribution
K aquifer East
K aquifer others
Kcoal
Kcoal
Kcoal
Likeliest
Max
0
0
0,4
0,1
0,02
10
0
1
0,15
0,05
20
1
3
0,4
0,1
@Beicip-Franlab
300-2000
300-2000
300-1000
1000-1500
1500-2000
Min
April 16th 2012
52
Recovery Factor
Rf from Material Balance
WA
With aquifer (Valencienois)
300 - 1000 m 1000-1500 m 1500 - 2000 m
P90
P50
P10
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Without aquifer
300 - 1000 m 1000-1500 m1500 - 2000 m
0%
0%
0%
P90
P50
P10
10%
41%
62%
0%
8%
31%
0%
0%
0%
WB
300 - 1000 m 1000-1500 m 1500 - 2000 m
P90
P50
P10
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
300 - 1000 m 1000-1500 m1500 - 2000 m
0%
0%
0%
P90
P50
P10
35%
48%
57%
0%
10%
32%
0%
0%
0%
WB
P90
P50
P10
April 16th 2012
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
300 - 1000 m 1000-1500 m1500 - 2000 m

P90
P50
P10
21%
39%
53%
0%
5%
22%
0%
0%
0%
@Beicip-Franlab
300 - 1000 m 1000-1500 m 1500 - 2000 m
53
GIP results
GIP results from a Monte Simulation
Uncertainty parameters :
Density
Gas Content
Cut off
P10
3613
429
1983
2094
Total Nord Pas de Calais
6625
7971
Gross GIP after Cut Off (bcf)

P90
P50
Permis Poissonire
1739
2282
Permis Dsire
224
283
Permis Valenciennois
1056
1339
Permis Sud Midi
865
1202
P10
2944
354
1649
1676
6517
April 16th 2012
5579
3956
5121
EGL Results
GIP
Valenciennois
Bruay-Bouvigny
Lens
Desiree
NPC Total Gas In Place
1313
772
1387
128
GROSS BCF
2104
1529
2380
156
2841
2334
3276
163
3600
6169
8614
@Beicip-Franlab
Gross GIP before Cut Off (bcf)

P90
P50
Permis Poissonire
2443
2956
Permis Dsire
322
363
1521
1729
Permis Sud Midi
1189
1549
54
Contingent Resources results

Contingent Resources results from a Monte Simulation
Uncertainty parameters :
Recovery factor (correlation performed Gas content vs. Rf)
Net Contingent Resources (bcf)
EGL Interest Permit 70%
P90
P50
Permis Poissonire
274
456
Permis Dsire
27
51
0
0
Permis Sud Midi
3
20
P10
744
86
0
90
894
319
534
EGL Results
GAS RESOURCES
Valenciennois
Bruay-Bouvigny
Lens
Desiree
NPC Producible Gas
1000 m
474
279
501
46
1500 m
1026
746
1161
76
2000 m
1659
1363
1913
95
1300
3008
5030
No Prospective resources in Nord Pas de Calais

April 16th 2012
@Beicip-Franlab
Area
NET BCF
55

Egl BF 16 04 2012 NPC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Egl BF 16 04 2012 NPC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONTRACT N 2121040

EVALUATION OF COAL BED METHANE RESERVES AND RESOURCES

FINAL PRESENTATION 16/04/2012

Rueil Malmaison, April 16th 2012

232, avenue Napolon Bonaparte

Introduction Context Objectives.09:40-09:50

Reserves Resources categorization.09:50-10:00

Nord Pas de Calais Resources..10:15-12:30

permits held by EGL in the Nord Pas-de-Calais

The objective of the Study, concerning the

For both Lorraine and NPdC basins there is no proved, probable or

and/or Prospective Resources

Source: PRMS Guidelines Nov 2011

April 16th 2012

If not sufficient to establish the existence of a significant quantity of

EGL Project: Resources

No minimum distance to major

Minimum distance to mining area:

Nord Pas de Calais basin

April 16th 2012

The range of uncertainty 1C/2C/3C reflects a range of estimated quantities

To capture the influence of depth, calculations will be done for 3 ranges of

depth: 300-1000 m TVD; 1000-1500 m TVD; 1500-2000 m TVD.

April 16th 2012

Workflow for EGL

Petrel model audit

Study of Gas Content distribution

Study of Isotherm curves

April 16th 2012

K versus Depth (Analogs - Bibliography)

For Lorraine: 1,7 mD @ 916,5 mTVD (Folshviller 2)

Next step: Normalization of the curves in order to get:

K versus Depth Lorraine/NPdC

=> Resources will be defined as Gross Resources

April 16th 2012

Initial reservoir (cleats) pressure

No measurements in the data base.

April 16th 2012

Prosper pressure loss calculations

For both Lorraine and NPdC:

300-1000 mTVD: 32 psia

April 16th 2012

NORD PAS DE CALAIS GEOLOGICAL REVIEW

232, avenue Napolon Bonaparte

Overview of Nord-Pas-de-Calais Area

Review of structural modeling

Coal Volume computations

April 16th 2012

Overview of Nord-Pas-de-Calais Area

Review of structural modeling

Coal Volume computations

April 16th 2012

General modeling workflow

April 16th 2012

Overview of Nord-Pas-de-Calais Area

Sud Midi Permit

April 16th 2012

Permit Poissonire : 216,4 km2

Volumes BF: Bruay model : 341,4 km2

Permit Sud Midi

Volumes EGL: Bruay model : 451,1 km2

April 16th 2012

Volumes EGL: Desiree model : 192,8 km2