DS,

I'm not too knowledgeable about sub salt plays in S La. My work has been in the Deep Water GOM. But there are similar aspects. To answer your specific questions:

It's 100% seismic exploration. Even when there are a lot of offset wells (and there are very few in your play) most deep targets are confirmed seismically. Advances in seismic over the last 10 years have led these plays.

No...drilling through salt is old hat...been doing it for 30+ years. But there are still significant mechanical risks. The weight of the drilling mud is varied to deal with high reservoir pressures in all deep wells. Too heavy a MW and you'll collapse the hole. Too light a MW and you risk a blow out...makes for a very bad day. This is actually my job these days: monitor the drilling situation and make MW recommendations. The one caution: a $25 million hole can turn into a $50 million one in a blink of an eye. Drilling deep is always a risky proposition. Make sure your guys have deep enough pockets to handle such a cost overruns. My last Deep Water $100 million hole cost $148 million by the time we were done. And it was a dry hole.

Same type of animal Petrobras is chasing but otherwise no relationship.

I know Exxon and others have been chasing ultra deep targets in S La but haven’t heard of any great successes. There isn’t a potential for the cookie cutter type plays in the unconventional shale gas plays. The deep exploration programs are chasing very specific types of structural traps similar to the old conventional NG fields. There may be a number of fields to find out there but nothing like the 10’s of thousands of unconventional gas well that will be drilled. Huge payday for a company that finds one but the play won’t ever add up in aggregate like the UNG plays.

And this is why you don’t hear much about sub salt: just a few players with new discoveries coming just a few times a year at best.

Thanks for the heads up, ROCKMAN.

From what you're saying, it sounds like these are highly speculative ventures, not only from a gelogical perspective, but from an operatonal one as well.

It makes one wonder whether the potential rewards justify the risks.

These domestic oil and gas producers face some pretty tough choices. Despite all the technological advances in seismic, drilling and completion technology, a panacea of quick riches doesn't seem to be in the cards: they can either opt for the low risk-low return that the resource plays offer, or they can go for the high risk-high return projects like the subsalt.

It's a hard business.

Joe Stiglitz has a new column out today. Even though I disagree with his conclusions, I nevertheless think his division of the economy into two parts--manufacturing vs. service--is insightful:

Some looking at the U.S. economy's decreasing reliance on manufacturing and increasing dependence on the service sector (including financial services) have long worried that the whole thing was a house of cards. After all, aren't "hard objects"--the food we eat, the houses we live in, the cars and airplanes that we use to transport us from one place to another, the gas and oil that provides heat and energy--the "core" of the economy? And if so, shouldn't they represent a larger fraction of our national output?

The simple answer is no. We live in a knowledge economy, an information economy, an innovation economy. Because of our ideas, we can have all the food we can possibly eat--and more than we should eat--with only 2 percent of the labor force employed in agriculture.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=947bf9e5-923b-409a-adac-579658...

Guys like yourself are out there doing the heavy lifting in the manufacturing sector. Meanwhile, the so-called "whiz kids" reap the huge monetary rewards in service sector endeavors like banking and finance.

Where I think Stiglitz gets it wrong is his characterization of the service economy as the "knowledge" economy, the "information" economy, the "innovation" economy. His blind spot is in thinking that guys like yourself, dedicated to the manufacturing sector, don't deploy as much knowledge, information and innovation as his fair haired boys in the service sector. The reality is that you probably deploy about 1000 times as much.

As much as I admire Stiglitz--his strident condemnations of the Iraq war and Bush's profligate and disastrous fiscal policies--I nevertheless think the time is rapidly approaching when we will see that he lives in a world of illusions, a dream world of smoke and mirrors.

I think Stiglits is right here, but only in times of great surplus.

Surplus energy, food, water, basically all resources.

However we are entering or in a period of huge forced constraints on all of the above.

So he is DEAD wrong. IMO

"His blind spot is in thinking that guys like yourself, dedicated to the manufacturing sector, don't deploy as much knowledge, information and innovation as his fair haired boys in the service sector. "

No, when someone like Stiglitz refers to the "knowledge" economy, he's including people like Rockman. Rockman is a knowledge worker, not a manual worker. That's Stiglitz's whole point - Rockman may not drag wellcasings around, but his services are essential to drilling.