Implications of Evolving U.S. Oil Pricing Policy for Domestic Reserve Values

1981 ◽  
Vol 33 (02) ◽  
pp. 341-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.A. Petrie ◽  
Robert D. Paasch
Keyword(s):  
1980 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 130
Author(s):  
R.C.N. Thornton ◽  
B.J. Burns ◽  
A.K. Khurana ◽  
A.J. Rigg

The Fortescue-1 well drilled in the Gippsland Basin in June 1978 was a dry hole. However, results of detailed stratigraphic analysis together with seismic data provided sufficient information to predict the possible occurrence of a stratigraphic trap on the flank of the giant Halibut structure.Three months later the West Halibut-1 well encountered oil in the Latrobe Group 16 m below that depth carried as the original oil-water contact for the Halibut field. Following wireline testing in both the water and oil-bearing sandstone units, two separate pressure systems were recognised in the well. Three additional wells, Fortescue-2, 3 and 4, were drilled to define further the limits of the field, the complex stratigraphy and the hydrocarbon contacts.Integration of detailed well log correlations, stratigraphic interpretations and seismic data indicated that the Fortescue reservoirs were a discrete set of units stratigraphically younger and separated from those of Halibut and Cobia Fields. Analysis of pressures confirmed the presence of two separate pressure systems, proving none of the Fortescue reservoirs were being produced from the Halibut platform. Geochemical analysis of oils from both accumulations supported the above results, with indications that no mixing of oils had occurred.Because the Fortescue Field is interpreted as a hydrocarbon accumulation which is completely separated from both Halibut and Cobia Fields, and was not discovered prior to September 17, 1975, it qualified as "new oil" under the Federal Government's existing crude oil pricing policy. In late 1979, the Federal Government notified Esso/BHP that oil produced from the Fortescue Field would be classified as “new oil”.


2008 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 414-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shu Wen Ng ◽  
Fengying Zhai ◽  
Barry M. Popkin

Waterlines ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 4-8
Author(s):  
Clarissa Brocklehurst ◽  
Jan Janssens ◽  
Pete Kolsky

2008 ◽  
Vol 104 (11/12) ◽  
Author(s):  
D.R. Walwyn

Despite the importance of labour and overhead costs to both funders and performers of research in South Africa, there is little published information on the remuneration structures for researchers, technician and research support staff. Moreover, there are widely different pricing practices and perceptions within the public research and higher education institutions, which in some cases do not reflect the underlying costs to the institution or the inherent value of the research. In this article, data from the 2004/5 Research and Development Survey have been used to generate comparative information on the cost of research in various performance sectors. It is shown that this cost is lowest in the higher education institutions, and highest in the business sector, although the differences in direct labour and overheads are not as large as may have been expected. The calculated cost of research is then compared with the gazetted rates for engineers, scientists and auditors performing work on behalf of the public sector, which in all cases are higher than the research sector. This analysis emphasizes the need within the public research and higher education institutions for the development of a common pricing policy and for an annual salary survey, in order to dispel some of the myths around the relative costs of research, the relative levels of overhead ratios and the apparent disparity in remuneration levels.


1982 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. LEE ◽  
B. STONE
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document