1. Norwegian North Sea
Prospects and Lead Screening
Compiled by:
Stig-Arne Kristoffersen,
Valioso (UK) Ltd
London - March 2006

2. Content
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3
BARENTS SEA ......................................................................................................................... 4
Hammerfest Basin.................................................................................................................. 4
MID NORWAY ....................................................................................................................... 11
Quadrants 6305, 6306, 6406 and 6407................................................................................. 11
Quadrants 6507 and 6508..................................................................................................... 12
NORTH SEA............................................................................................................................ 13
Quadrant 33.......................................................................................................................... 13
Quadrants 31, 32, 35 and 36................................................................................................. 17
Quadrants 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10................................................................................................... 19
Quadrant 16.......................................................................................................................... 23
Quadrants 8, 17 and 18......................................................................................................... 26
Quadrants 15 and 16............................................................................................................. 28
Quadrants 7 and 8................................................................................................................. 33
Quadrant 25.......................................................................................................................... 41
Quadrant 2............................................................................................................................ 42

3. Introduction
This report is compiled during March 2006. The purpose of this report is to give an overview
of the lead and prospect potential as Valioso (UK) Ltd sees it in open areas.
The report will not include raw geological data nor details not available in publications
available in the industry.
The report is meant as screening report only, and not to be treated as final geological
evaluation for presented areas. Report has taken material from various studies, and therefore
terms and presentation form of various leads/ prospects and play models will vary throughout
the report.
Valioso (UK) Ltd is not responsible for any errors in presented material, and will not be held
responsible for any results made, based upon the presentation herein.
Valioso (UK) ltd has not covered all prospectivity to be found in areas, as more prospectivity
is to be found within licensed areas as well as areas not covered within APA 2006. However
in some areas Valioso (UK) Ltd has made some comments and mention such prospectivity
where it is judged to be of strategic importance.
The report encompasses the following areas;
Barents Sea
Mid Norway
North Sea

4. BARENTS SEA
Hammerfest Basin
Area of interest is Hammerfest Basin, which is bounded by Finnmark Fault Zone to the south,
and Loppa High to the north. The Basin narrows eastwards, figure below.
Figure 1, Tectonic setting of Hammerfest Basin.
The regional structural geology of the Barents Sea has been affected by many tectonic phases.
During the Late Paleozoic through Mesozoic it was located within an intracratonic setting.
(Gabrielson 1990) There have been up to four major geologic events since the Devonian time
period. The majority of uplift and tilting of the Loppa High occurred during the
Carboniferous, helping create the Polhem platform and created the initial Loppa High. Later
uplift occurred during the Mid- to Late-Jurassic, furthering the slope of the Loppa High in an
East-West direction (Breivig, 1988). This was a time of multiple, complex structural events in
the area. Some of the activity causing the uplift involved basement rock also. Normal block
faulting, in addition to creating flexures and monoclines, all influenced the formation of the
Hammerfest Basin.
In Bjørnøya and Svalbard evidence of Pre-Carboniferous faulting in basement outcrops are
found (Harland, 1997). These basement strata have the same magnetic and gravity anomaly
patterns the basement strata of the Loppa High, suggesting Calideride structures are present.
There is evidence of later reactivation of Bjørnøya and Svalbard’s basement faults during
Carboniferous and Tertiary times (Harland, 1997). It is believed that there has been
preservation of fault zones and structures at the basement level of the Loppa High region
(Gabrielsen, 1984). These fractures may have influenced the structural development of the
Barents Sea from the Late Paleozoic to Cenozoic times.

5. Observable fault trends are ENE-WSW to NE-SW and NNE-SSW to NNW-SSE trends. The
West sector of the Barents Sea has been the most tectonically active from Mesozoic to
Cenozoic times, whereas the sectors to the east and northeast have been relatively quiet. The
Triassic to Early Jurassic was a relatively quiet period for the region, having no major
activity. Subsidence occurred during the Late Triassic. Also during the Triassic period, salt
tectonics affected the regional depositional patterns of the area (Gabrielson, 1990).
During the Mid-Jurassic, block faulting occurred once again and increased through the Early
Cretaceous (Grevik, 1998). During this time frame, a large amount of erosion took place,
leaving little Cretaceous and Jurassic sediments preserved on the Loppa High, thus creating a
well defined Jurassic Sequence Boundary in the basin. During the Late Cretaceous, "reverse
faulting and folding, combined with extensional faulting in some areas, became still more
common, even though extension may have prevailed on the regional scale" (Gabrielson,
1990). During the Eocene and Oligocene periods, an event of peak folding and inversion
occurred locally. Many of the deep-seated fault zones in the Barents Sea were created during
the Carboniferous or pre-Carboniferous. Due to the multiple events of early block faulting
activity, much of the later structural events are believed to be reactivation of those early
structures.
Gas-Condensate discoveries (7122/6-1, Snøhvit, Albatross, Akseladden and Alke) having thin
oil legs. These discoveries are found in Lower – Middle Jurassic shallow marine sandstones.
In Snøhvit multiple pay zones within Jurassic can be found.
7122/6.1, has a gas accumulation in the Middle-Upper Triassic Snadd Formation.
7120/1-2, next to the Loppa High in the northwest is a minor oil discovery in thin Lower
Cretaceous sandstones.
In the south-eastern part of the Hammerfest Basin next to Troms-Finnmark Platform, in
PL229, more spesific in block 7122/7, Goliath oil discovery in Lower-Middle Jurassic is
situated. Multiple plays can be identified within this license.
The structure has multiple closures ranging from the Base Cretaceous through Carboniferous.
“Albatross High” striking NW-SE direction constitutes a major structural element within
Hammerfest Basin. This structural element has a general dip towards NW.
The Hekkingen Formation hydrocarbon migration pathway is in general following this high
from Albatross field into Goliath field area.
There exists several other migration pathways within the Hammerfest Basin also.
Hydrocarbon expulsion is from the western part of Hammerfest Basin and contribution from
the Tromsø Basin.
The estimated oil volumes expelled from this source rock together with contribution form the
Tromsø Basin is expected to be sufficient to fill existing discoveries down to their structural
spill points.
Snøhvit field has the thickest oil leg of the gas-condensate discoveries, measuring 15 meters.
Oil shows are found in the gas cap and they continue about 100 meters into the water zone,
below the present oil-water contact. This indicate that the whole structure has once been filled
with oil, then later partially replaced by gas. The deepest continous oil show is interpreted to
represent a paleo oil-water contact.

6. For all discoveries in the Hammerfest Basin, apart from maybe Goliath, the paleo oil-water
contacts have been mapped out, and they coincide with the structural closures and they are
getting shallower towards east in the Basin.
The main spillage route from Snøhvit and Askeladden North goes first through Albatross and
further SE towards the Goliath structure within PL229.
All the structures in the Hammerfest Basin were present when the Upper Jurassic Hekkingen
Formation started to expel oil in Early Cretaceous – Middle Oligocene times in the Tromsø
Basin kitchen. The same source rock in the deepest parts part in west of Hammerfest Basin,
started to yield oil in Late Paleocene time. The structures where filled with oil down to
structural spill points, but missing Tertiary section indicate uplift has taken place. In Late
Oligocene – Early Pliocene times, the main uplift took place causing formation of gas caps,
gas expansion and oil spillage from the structures towards east. The later oil filling and the
fewer uplifts of structures in the eastern part of Hammerfest Basin, the thicker oil column is
observed.
The reason why the hydrocarbon discoveries in the Hammerfest Basin are not filled down to
their structural spill could be due to the gas diffusion through top seal and/ or compaction of
the gas column caused by renewed overburden of Quaternary and water.
Jurassic play models are confirmed by 7122/6-1, Albatross, Snøhvit, Alke, Akseladden and
Goliath. These models consists of structural closures with partly sealing faults.
The reservoir is shallow marine sandstones. The risk of these structures are the fill and spill
model in the area. Primary hydrocarbon migration as described above.
Triassic play model is tested in 7122/6-1, which has a gas accumulation in the Middle –
Upper Triassic Snadd Formation. In addition this play models exist in PL 229.
The reservoir is marine to fluvial sandstones, source and charge together with trap integrities
are main risks.
Lower Cretaceous play model is confirmed in wells 7120/1-2, 7120/2-2 and 7122/2-1 along
the Loppa High. In addition this play model is believed to be present along the Troms
Finnmark fault zone.
So far oil has been present in thin turbiditic sandstones above a thick water wet Valanginian
sandstone sequence. The main risk of this model is trap integrity and hydrocarbon migration.

7. Based on several studies performed in Hammerfest Basin and areas between this basin and the
Goliat Discovery wells, its believed to be present Lower – Upper Jurassic traps in pathway of
hydrocarbon (see above figure). To exemplify some of these traps, two LFP profiles are
shown to demonstrate the potential for hydrocarbon in tilted fault blocks, partially fault
independent (se below figures).
Line A which goes from well 7121/5-1 demonstrate the tilted fault block just south of this
well location, and it can be seen that the LFP profile predicts hydrocarbon filling in levels
found in this well. However this closure is to be found with already licenced area from last
concession round.

8. LINE A
NW SE
Supporting the LFP profile A, it can be observed the same LF prediction in same levels in
closure seen in Block 7122/4 in Line B, (see figure below). We believe that closures along
main faults in Blocks 7122/4 and 5 would have large potential for hydrocarbon filling.
LINE B
SW NE

9. The southern part of Block 7121/5 could be prospect on several stratigraphic levels.
In the APA 2006 open acreage for all these blocks mentioned here, there is also a potential for
leads in other stratigraphic levels than discussed here in this report.
Upper Jurassic and Cretaceous potential is believed to be found in Block 7121/7.
However there is associated a political risk with this area as seen in discussions in media in
Norway during 2005 and early 2006 with the protests against Goliath development and a
political indecisive position for the Barents Sea in await of environmental impact studies to be
finalized and analysed within the Norwegian Authorities.
Structural traps along Troms-Finnmark Fault Zone
Stratigraphic and fault dependant traps along Troms-Finnmark Fault Zone
Stratigraphic traps in Cretaceous and Tertiary section within Basin itself

10. Structural traps intra-basinal postion in Hammerfest Basin
Stratigraphic traps intra-basinal position in Hammerfest Basin

11. MID NORWAY
Quadrants 6305, 6306, 6406 and 6407
Lead 1 is a Upper Jurassic play , pinch out with potential of truncation
Lead 2 is a Upper/Middle Jurassic play, truncation to BCU
Lead 3 is Upper Jurassic play
Lead 4 is M/L Jurassic play, truncated BCU
Lead 5 is M/L Jurassic play, truncated BCU
Lead 6 is Upper Jurassic play
Lead 7 is U/M/L Jurassic play
Lead 8 is M-U Jurassic play
Unnamed leads are mostly Upper Jurassic, with some potential in M/L Jurassic

12. Quadrants 6507 and 6508
Lead 1 is M-L Jurassic, structural
Lead 2 is Tertiary , semi structural, stratigraphic
Lead 3 is M-L Jur
Lead 4 is M-L Jur
Lead 5 is M-L Jur
Lead 6 is M-L Jur
Lead 7 is U Jur

13. NORTH SEA
Quadrant 33

14. Valioso (UK) Ltd does see potential ranging from Triassic to Cretaceous within these Blocks
(see lead 1-7 in figure below). There has been worked on other play models in this area, based
on work performed from the UK side of the North Sea.

15. Lead 1 is a Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous lead, which has a fair to medium size, main
risk is trap intetgrity as Base Seal can be destroyed in these leads. Its believed to be gas prone.
Lead 2 is a Upper Jurassic/Lower Cretaceous lead, with small to fair size, main risk is source.
The lead is supposed to be gas prone.
Lead 3 as lead 2.
Lead 4 is a Upper Cretaceous lead, with same characteristics as lead 1.
Lead 5 and 6 are Triassic to Lower/Middle Jurassic leads, with a potential for Upper Jurassic
in Lead location 6. Main risk is trap integrity due to fault dependency to make medium to
large volumes, otherwise the risk is moderate to small volumes. Reservoir characteristics are
also a matter to be concerned about.
Lead 7 is a Triassic together with potential other levels in same area. Main risk is reservoir
together with trap integrity.
Several parties have studied the petroleum system of the Tampen Spur – Sogn Graben area.
The approaches used have been by 1D and 2D analysis of seismic in the area where various
hypotheses could be tested and later applied in a 3D sense. The area ranges from the deepest
part of the `Tampen Graben' across the Visund Ridge and the Marflø Ridge to the Sogn
Graben in the east. Four source rocks have been taken into account, two marine the Draupne
Formation (the most prolific) and the Heather Formation and two deltaic, the Brent and the
Dunlin Formations.
Several different prospect types can be defined: the Brent at the top of the tilted blocks and
several generations of Heather Formation sand bodies at the foot of the eroded tilted blocks.
In addition there are Lower and Upper Cretaceous transgressive and lowstand playmodels to
be explored.

16. Critical elements are the geometry of sand bodies and migration of hydrocarbons from the
rich Draupne Formation source rocks into the sands in the various trap types.
Maturation is believed to have started in the middle Cretaceous, between 100 Ma in the
deepest eastern part of the section (Sogn Graben) and 80 Ma for the Draupne Formation on
the Tampen Spur west graben. At this time, the Cretaceous shales already sealed the
structures. Apart from the Visund Ridge and flankal areas of Sogn Graben, all the prospects at
Upper Jurassic or deeper are currently in the condensate or gas window. Overpressures are
compatible with large closed fault systems.
Possible sealing of minor faults before migration could be critical in this region. There is no
easy migration path from the rich Draupne Formation rocks to the reservoirs and various
hypotheses are found to explain the regional petroleum potential. One possible explanation for
the regional charge is the contribution of the other source rocks, the Heather, the Brent and
the Dunlin.
Upper Jurassic
The Upper Jurassic consists mainly of marine shales with coarser clastic sequences developed
locally. The contact between Draupne and Heather shales are often abrupt. The Draupne
Formation is organic rich and highly radioactive. The Viking Group, consisting of both
Heather and Draupne Formations, has become more complex due to discoveries of different
sand formations within the group. The coastal to shallow marine sandstone units named
Sognefjord, Fensfjord and Krossfjord Formation sands are the most common reservoir units
with Upper Jurassic sequence
Lower Cretaceous
In this interval at least two separate sandstone units can be detected both in wells and seismic.
The Åsgard and Agat Sandstones. The Åsgard sand Unit is intrpreted as a highstand systems
tract unit; as for the Agat sand Units, which are stacked, sandy units are intrepeted as
lowstand systems tract units. In NPD nomenclature the sandstone units are named Ran
sandstones for the Viking Graben system.
Upper Cretaceous
Kyrre sandstones (99), has been penetrated in quad 35 by wells, and exhibits good reservoir
qualities and found hydrocarbon bearing. This sandstone unit, could consist of several sub-
units, and its distribution together with reservoir quality is pertient to know, in order to
understand its play feasibility.

17. Quadrants 31, 32, 35 and 36
Figure . Prospect/ Lead Opportunities within Quadrant 35 and 36 – APA2006 acreage
Within the offered APA2006 area, Valioso (UK) Ltd has identified 8 prospect/ lead
opportunities.
These opportunities are outlined in figure 1 above.
Lead 1 is identified within Blocks 31/3 and 32/1 and is identified as a large tilted fault block
at Upper Jurassic and Middle/Lower Jurassic levels. This lead could contain a Upper
Jurassic/Lower Cretaceous stratigraphic lead associated with it.
Lead 2 is identified within Block 36/10, as a Middle/ Lower Jurassic tilted Fault Block.
Lead 3 is identified within Block 36/7 as Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous lead.
Lead 4 is identified within Block 36/7 as Lead 3.
Lead 5 is identified within Blocks 35/8 and 35/9, mainly in latter Block. This is a Lower
Cretaceous Lead
Lead 6 is identified within Block 35/8

18. Lead 7 is identified within Block 35/9
Lead 8 is identified within Blocks 35/8 and 35/5, mainly the first block.
The unamed lead in Blocks 36/4 and 36/7 is assumed to be Aptian Sand wedge stratigraphic
trap. Associated with this lead is several other leads found in same geographic area, although
various levels from Jurassic and upwards, even potential Basement traps. GIIP approximately
25 x 109 Sm3.

19. Quadrants 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10
Valioso (UK) Ltd has knowledge of this area through work in many studies performed in the
period 1999-2004.
Some of this acreage has been licenced since Valioso (UK) Ltd has worked here, however
few if any plays in the leads/ prospects identified in this region has been penetrated nor tested.
There are identified leads/ prospects at Paleocene sands in the Siri Fairway system, and at
Cretaceous Chalk levels, in addition to potential deeper intervals in Cretaceous and even
deeper levels. However the latter two intervals are not covered in this report.
There are identified 19 various leads/ prospects in this area, they range from anomlies to
strctures and stratigraphic traps. We will not discuss all details around the various leads/
prospects in this report, since this will be possible to do at a later stage if Revus decide to
work in this area in APA2006.
Lead 1 is identified in Block 3/6 within the Palaeocene sands and Chalk levels, see figure
below, however the risks associated with the various levels are quite different due to mainly
trap integrity. A depth of this lead is around 2000 meters. The lead is associated with salt
Diapir, however not dependant upon seal against this. There is also a potential for Oligocene
sand traps in this area. Source is the main risk for this lead. The lead is assumed to have a
volume in place in Paleocene interval of around 70-150 x 106 Sm3 oil at Chalk level around
120 x106 Sm3, both cases with associated gas phase.

20. Lead 1 geo-scetch
Lead 2 is identified mainly in Block 4/4 and stretches into Danish sector as well. A well has
been drilled on the crest of the SE flank of the lead on the Danish sector. This well had no
Paleocene sands. There was oil shows in this well in the Chalk interval. The Chalk was of
poor quality in the well location.
Paleocene sands are deposited around the rim of the Salt structure which has formed the trap
of this lead. It is assumed a stratigraphic trap at this level. Main risk is source and trap
integrity due to shallow faults at crest of structure. GRV is approximately 61 x 106 m3.
Lead 2 geo-scetch
Lead 3 is located mainly in Block 4/4 with some portions in Blocks 10/10 and 4/1. The lead is
similar to lead 1, but the salt diaper is shallower at this location. Paleocene is main target with
potential but very high risk at Chalk level. The lead is at approximately 1700 meters with a
GRV of approximately 20 x 106 m3.

21. Lead 3 geo-scetch
Lead 4 Is located in Block 4/2 and is a Paleocene interval lead.
Lead 5 is located in Block 4/2 as well, defined as a Paleocene lead at approximately 1400
meters depth. The trap is a stratigraphic trap within Hermod level sands at around 1300
meters level, associated with a possible DHI.
Lead 6 is located in Block 5/1 and is defined by an anomaly at Oligocene level (Grid Fm?).
Leads 7,8 and 11-16 are all defined by anomalies at Oligocene level (Grid Fm?).
Lead 9 is located in Block 10/12 and is defined as a low relief structure at Paleocene level
with a approximately 100 x 106 m3 GRV. Source is the main risk for this lead.
Lead 9 Geo-scetch
Lead 10 is located in Block 10/11 and 10/12 and is defined as a Paleocene level lead at
approximately 800 meters depth with a GRV of approximately 1500 x106 m3.
Main risk is reservoir distribution together with source.

22. Lead 10 Geo-Scetch
Lead 17 is located in Block 3/3, no information about this lead available at the time of writing
the report.
Lead 18 is located in Blocks 3/1, 3/2 and 3/5, Oligocene Lowstand Wedge lead, massive lead
opportunity with large potential. Risks are biodegraded oils and trap integrity. The lead is in
excess of 700 km2
and lies in the open acreage of blocks 3/1, 3/2, 3/4 and 3/5. There are found
amplitude anomalies, and potential direct hydrocarbon indications.
Lead 19 is located in Block 3/5, no information available at time of writing the report.

23. Quadrant 16
Valioso (UK) Ltd has promoted these Blocks prospectivity in connection with potential for
APA 2004 application, and has no more information to provide regarding this area at the
moment. The figures below are taken from the promotional tour presentation made in
connection with this work.
Focus on several play models, which one is illustrated here. A channel/ lobe system with
a NW province area is identified within these Blocks. Several generations of these
channels overlap each other, and a complex distribution of potential reservoir units can
be identified. These features can also act as fluid carriers/ migration path ways for other
play models in area.

24. Channels within Upper Cretaceous – Lower Tertiary section sets up several migration
pathways as well as leads within this area. Dong licence within block 7/1 illustrate this
playmodel, with its features of channels and hummocky internal geometries. The
playmodel also assist migration into other playmodels further east into quadrant 7 area.
Rollover structures and related stratigraphic pinch out features within 7 Quadrant which
is helped by migration within Upper Cretaceous/ Lower Tertiary section. Potential Direct
Hydrocarbon Identifiers can be seen.
Block 16/9,11 and 12 together with Blocks in quad 17
A seismic line going through well 16/8-1, location seen in figure above, is shown in figure
below. The well was located to test a thrust-faulted structure in a NE-SW trending sub-basin
to the southeast of the Utsira High. The primary objective was the basal Late Jurassic sand.
This sand was estimated to have an approximate gross thickness of 71 metres.

25. Amplitude Seismic Section
Relative Acoustic Impedance line
At well location acoustic impedance is realtive high, but area just east of location has much
lower acoustic impedance. Well found to be dry. Potential new prospect east of well location
in new structure – untested. Acoustic impedanse indicate realtive thick high porosity zone at
structure loaction.

26. Quadrants 8, 17 and 18
Valioso (UK) Ltd has knowledge of several leads/ prospects within these quadrants, but can
only tell about Stratigraphic levels and Blocks they can be identified within, without
disclosing the actual locations without knowledge of seismic database for reader in these
blocks.
26/11-L1
26/10 and 17/1-L1
17/1-L2 M – U Jr Horst
17/3-P1 M Jur
17/4-L1 U Jur
17/4-L2 Paleozoic
17/4-L3 U Jur
17/5-L1 M Jur Horst
17/7-L1 U Jur
17/7-L2 Age Uncertain ?
17/7-L3 U Jur
17/9-L1 L Jur ?
17/9-L2 M Jur
17/10-L1 Jur
17/10-L2 U Cret

27. 17/10-L3 U Cret
17/10-L4 U Cret
17/11-L1 Jur
17/11-L2 Jur
17/11-L3 U Cret
17/11-L4 Age uncertain ?
17/11-L5 Jur
17/11-L6 Jur
17/12- BREAM – M Jur
17/12- L1 U Cret
17/12- BRISLING – M Jur
17/12-L2 Age Uncertain ?
18/10-L1 M Jur

28. Quadrants 15 and 16

29. Based on previous work in licensed areas in these quadrants, the question of migration
pathway and trap integrity been raised as the key issues for exploration in this area.
Block 16/7 is available for APA 2006 application, and Valioso (UK) Ltd sees potential within
the Jurassic as well as Tertiary sequences within this Block (see above figure).
Play models are varied (see figure below).

30. As illustrated in the above figure, plays can be found in several levels, both stratigraphic and
geographical position. Some plays can be tested in same geographic position, as others need
different well locations in order to be tested. Similar to most of these, is that they have not yet
been tested in this area, as previous wells have been placed on top of existing structures, and
hence not optimal for most play models found in this area. Most plays are stratigraphic, with
some fault dependant closures.

31. As seen in the two above figures, there is Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary plays in this region
to be explored at as well. However, most of this acreage is licensed; however Blocks 16/7 and
Block 17/4 are prospective at this level with various play types. A seismic line illustrate some
of these play models.

33. Quadrants 7 and 8
This area has been licensed but relinquished latest in 1996, with all dry wells tested within
Blocks 7/8, 7/9 and 8/7.
Several prospects to be found within these Blocks, Block 7/8 licensed by Dong and Talisman.
Along Reke Fault zone several minor leads are found at Upper Jur level. There are also
potential within Paleocene and Upper Cretaceous section within APA 2006 acreage east of
Block 7/8.
Main risks associated with these leads are source and trap integrity.
Exploration well 8/10-1 was drilled on a gentle salt dome structure about 12 km west of the
Ula Field on the Sørvestlandet High. The objectives were to test Tertiary and Mesozoic
horizons. More specifically, the well should test the Tertiary Miocene section equivalent to
the gas-bearing sand section in well 2/3-1 (35 miles southeast), Eocene sands which had
minor gas shows in well 7/8-1 (25 miles northwest) and with oil shows in the Shell 1/3-1,
Paleocene sands productive in the Cod Field (25 miles east), fractured Upper Cretaceous
limestone with condensate and gas shows in well 1/3-1 (20 miles southwest), and Jurassic and
Triassic sands that were very porous and permeable in well 7/8-1. The latter also had small
shows in wells 7/8-1 and 9/4-1 (50 miles northwest).
We therefore believe there are potential left in Paleocene section as well as other stratigraphic
levels in Tertiary section. Both a structural and stratigraphic lead can be identified within
Block 8/10 as well as a structural trap at Jurassic level. Main risks are both trap integrity as
well as source for these leads/traps. Salt related traps are in need of imaging, and therefore
good seismic quality is critical for these trap types. We judge Blocks 7/9 and 8/7 to have
potential for salt induced traps within Paleocene as well as Jurassic level. Several traps have
been identified and in excess of 5 leads have been identified within these 2 blocks. Previous
work identifies volumes in Place ranging from 5-45 MSm3 for these traps.

34. Within Block 7/2 there are several plays within Upper Cretaceous and Lower Paleocene
levels. These plays have been presented in previous concession round and APA 2004 work.
In previously concession PL 088, at the moment APA 2006, Block 7/2.
Well 8/1-1 and down flank potential from this well location in APA 2006 area as well as
within concession area east of Block 8/1. Below is a amplitude seismic line.

35. Relative Acoustic Impedance line of same line as above. Blue are low acoustic Impedance
areas, as red, are high acoustic impedance areas.

36. Amplitude seismic line through well location 8/9-1, a dry well.
Relative Acoustic Impedance of same line as above, blue low and red high acoustic
impedance areas.
Block 8/12

38. Amplitude section through well 2/2-2, which illustrates the tectonic elements away from well
locations towards the NE.
Relative Acoustic Impedance section of same seismic line through well 2/2-2. Blue is low
acoustic impedance levels and red high acoustic impedance level.

39. Blocks 3/1 and 9/11
Well 9/11-1 which is a well with traces of hydrocarbons within it, illustrates that there is a
potential in this region as well.
The seismic line below illustrates the tectonic elements SW of this well location.
The below Relative Acoustic Impedance section of same seismic line as above, illustrates
some of the potential in these Blocks which is still believed to be untested in the area.

41. Quadrant 25
Palaeocene and Eocene intervals are the most promising intervals in this area, however other
intervals should not be ruled out as they could provide prospective levels as well.
11 potential leads plus one additional potential lead is identified within this area for
APA2006.
All leads are supposed to be in Paleocene/Eocene levels, and to be of small to medium sized
leads, all semi-stratigraphic or pure structural traps. However seismic used to perform this
screening was not optimal at the time of study, and we know there has been done work later
with new seismic which confirms these leads, and some have been classified to prospects
later.
Mainly blocks 25/3 and 25/6 are found to be most prospective as they also lead into prospects
found in seismic area in Quadrant 26. In this areas larger leads and prospects are found, which
are very interesting for further prospecting as well.
Block 25/3 also include potential for up to 3 different Jurassic structural leads.

42. Quadrant 2
Valioso (UK) Ltd has identified a salt related lead in Block 2/8 which could be of interest in
APA2006 evaluation. Two wells have drilled in its vicinity, and at crestal part of salt diaper,
without testing the potential of a fault dependant trap within Paleocene and/ or Chalk interval.
Its estimated a 60 x 106 m3 in STOIIP for this lead.