2010meta Report Rubiales-Piriri Final - Rev

Reserves Certification Report
for the
Rubiales Field, Colombia
Prepared For:
Metapetroleum Corporation
Meta Petroleum Corp.
February 2011
411 North Sam Houston Parkway E., Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77060-3545
T +1 281 448 6188 F +1 281 448 6189
E rpsenergy@rpsgroup.com
W www.rpsgroup.com
RPS Energy
2010 Reserve Certification Report
Table of Contents
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 1
2.0
CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 4
3.0
FIELD OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................. 5
3.1
3.2
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
5.0
5.1
5.2.
OWNERSHIP ..................................................................................................................... 5
DEVELOPMENT HISTORY ................................................................................................... 5
GEOSCIENCE .................................................................................................................... 7
GEOLOGIC WORK PROCESS .............................................................................................. 7
GEOLOGIC COMMENTS ..................................................................................................... 8
IDENTIFICATION OF ROCK TYPE ......................................................................................... 9
PETROPHYSICS.............................................................................................................. 13
PETROPHYSICAL WORK PROCESS ................................................................................... 13
PETROPHYSICAL DATA, PARAMETERS AND MODELS......................................................... 14
6.0
STATIC GEOCELLULAR MODEL .................................................................................. 18
7.0
RESERVES DETERMINATION ....................................................................................... 21
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 21
DEVELOPED RESERVES .................................................................................................. 21
UNDEVELOPED RESERVES AND RESOURCES ................................................................... 23
SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 26
8.0
PRODUCTION FORECASTING ...................................................................................... 27
9.0
DETERMINATION OF VALUE......................................................................................... 29
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
10.0
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
OWNERSHIP ................................................................................................................... 29
DETERMINATION OF VOLUMES ......................................................................................... 29
MARKETING .................................................................................................................... 31
COSTS ........................................................................................................................... 32
EVALUATION PARAMETERS ............................................................................................. 37
ANALYSIS RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 37
QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS .......................................................................... 40
INDEPENDENCE AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST ................................................................... 40
PURPOSE, SCOPE AND USE OF THIS REPORT .................................................................. 40
AVAILABLE DATA ............................................................................................................. 40
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS ..................................................................................... 40
FIELD VISIT AND INSPECTION ........................................................................................... 41
LIABILITY WAIVER ........................................................................................................... 41
List of Figures
R01021
February 2011
RPS
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.5
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.6
Figure 4.7
Figure 4.8
Figure 4.9
Figure 4.10
Figure 4.11
Figure 4.12
Figure 4.13
Figure 4.14
Figure 4.15
Figure 4.16
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.2
Figure 5.3
Figure 5.4
Figure 5.5
Figure 5.6
Figure 5.7
Figure 5.8
Figure 5.9
Figure 5.10
Figure 5.11
Figure 5.12
Figure 5.13
Figure 5.14
Figure 5.15
Figure 5.16
Figure 5.17
Figure 5.18
Figure 5.19
Figure 5.20
Figure 5.21
Figure 5.22
Figure 5.23
Figure 5.24
Figure 5.25
Figure 5.26
Figure 5.27
Figure 5.28
Figure 5.29
Figure 5.30
R01021
Rubiales Field Location Map

Concession Map
Rubiales Field Production Plot
Rubiales Concession Production Plot
Piriri Concession Production Plot
Formation Tops (Arenas Basales and OWC)
Stratigraphic Cross Section (Hung on top Arenas Basales)
Lithofacies Interpretations using Variogram Analysis (Rubiales Area)
Meta Petroleum Net to Gross Sand Ratio Map Arenas Basales Reservoir Interval
Meta Petroleums Integration of Lithofacies and Petrofacies Data
Cross Section showing Gamma Ray, Resistivity, and Lithofacies/Petrofacies
Curve
Meta Petroleums Reservoir Model
Meta Petroleums 3D Representation of Petrel Geocellular Model
Meta Petroleums STOOIP Map from November, 2010
Cross Section through Quifa 3
Meta Petroleums Quifa 3 Location and STOOIP Map
Residual Trend Surface Isopach Arenas Basales
Definition of the Residual Map
Structure vs Trend Surface Residual Maps Top Arenas Basales
Structure vs Trend Surface Residual Maps Oil Water Contact
Residual Mapping Method to Predict Probable and Possible Reserve Additions
RUBIALES-PIRIRI-QUIFA Base Map
Pickett Plot for Selected Wells
Wellbore Geometry Analysis Vertical Wells 2010
Wells RB-46, 366 and QUIFA-8 Mineral Identification Spectral GR
Core-Log Porosity Calibration. Well RUBILALES-46
Neutron-Density Cross Plots Selected RUBIALES-PIRIRI wells
Neutron-Density Cross Plots Selected QUIFA wells
Composite Log Well RUBIALES-150
ii
February 2011
RPS
Figure 5.31
Figure 5.32
Figure 5.33
Figure 5.34
Figure 5.35
Figure 5.36
Figure 5.37
Figure 5.38
Figure 5.39
Figure 5.40
Figure 5.41
Figure 5.42
Figure 5.43
Figure 5.44
Figure 5.45
Figure 5.46
Figure 5.47
Figure 5.48
Figure 5.49
Figure 5.50
Figure 5.51
Figure 5.52
Figure 5.53
Figure 5.54
Figure 5.55
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.2
Figure 6.3
Figure 6.4
Figure 6.5
Figure 6.6
Figure 8.1
Figure 8.2
Figure 9.1

Structural Model used to create the Geocellular Model of Quifa-Rubiales-Piriri
Example of the Auditing and Validation of the Well Property Correlation
Geocellular Model Divided in 60 Layers and More than15 Million Cells
Parameters for the R1 Rock Type For Zone 1 of the Geocellular Model
Petrophysical Volume Generated from the Geocellular Model
Map of Barrel per Cell Generated from the Geocellular Model
Production Plot - History and Forecast
Production Plot by Reserve Category
Pipeline Routes
List of Tables
Table 1.1
Table 1.2
Table 1.3
Table 1.4
Table 1.5
Table 1.6
Table 1.7
Table 1.8
Table 4.1
Table 7.1
Table 9.1
Table 9.2
Table 9.3
R01021
Summary of Oil and Gas Reserves

Net Present Value of Future Net Revenue
Total Future Net Revenue (Undiscounted)
Future Net Revenue by Production Group
Future Net Revenue (Unit Value Basis) by Production Group
Summary of Pricing and Inflation Rate Assumptions
Summary of Estimated Development Costs Attributable to Reserves
Summary of Production Estimates Proved + Probable + Possible Reserves
Summary of Analysis of Meta 2010 Work Flow
Summary of Reserves and Production to May 31, 2016
Crude Oil Production, Fuel Consumption, Naptha Purchases and Sales
WTI Crude Oil and Rubiales Crude Oil/Naptha Blend Price Forecast
Field Investment Summary
iii
February 2011
RPS
Table 9.4
Field Expense Summary
List of Appendices
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
R01021
Reserves Guidelines issued by the Society of Petroleum Engineers

Before Tax Cases Economic Summary Projections
After Tax Cases Economic Summary Projections.
iv
February 2011
RPS
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RPS was engaged by Meta Petroleum Corporation, (Meta) to perform a reserves certification
report effective December 31, 2010 for the Rubiales Field.
The Rubiales field is the name given to the Rubiales and Piriri producing concessions. Rubiales
consists of mostly basal sands, which produce heavy oil of 12.5 API. The field development
program includes producing from a combination of vertical and horizontal wells arranged in
clusters. The strategic partner for this asset is Ecopetrol, which is the Colombian state-owned oil
company. Meta has a 50% working interest with Ecopetrol in the Piriri concession, and a 40%
interest with Ecopetrol in the Rubiales concession.
The field has produced for a number of years and has a significant reserves base remaining. An
aggressive drilling program has been pursued to develop the majority of the reserves prior to the
expiration of the Rubiales and Piriri concessions on May 31, 2016.
Given the reservoir
performance to date and the associated development plan, the drilling program should continue
to be successful and oil production will increase considerably as the work proceeds.
All reserves volumes in the field are categorized as proved, probable or possible based on the
definitions in the Petroleum Resource Management System (PRMS) of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers and the Canadian Oil and Gas Evaluation Handbook (COGEH). Many of
the wells to be drilled are in the probable and possible categories some distance from the
currently developed area; those volumes are unrisked in this report as is the value placed on
those volumes. The present value of the reserves was calculated at discount rates of 0%, 5%,
10%, 15% and 20% using a price forecast developed by the Strategic Planning Department of
RPS in London. All costs associated with the development of the reserves, including drilling,
infrastructure and water disposal wells are included.
The table below provides a summary of the reserves and value by each reserves category:
R01021
February 2011
RPS
Reserves Category
Field Gross
Reserves
MMbbl
Meta Working
Interest Reserves
MMbbl
Gross
Net
NPV @ 10%
$MM US
BFIT
AFIT
Proved
Developed Producing
112.1
47.6
38.1
1,654.5
1,148.3
Developed Non-Producing
36.3
15.6
12.5
390.4
274.8
Undeveloped
245.7
102.3
81.8
2,643.8
1,862.2
Total Proved
394.1
165.5
132.4
4,688.7
3,285.3
Probable
14.5
6.1
4.9
148.6
104.8
Total Proved + Probable
408.6
171.6
137.3
4,837.3
3390.0
0.5
0.2
0.2
3.1
2.2
409.1
171.8
137.5
4,840.4
3,392.3
Possible
Total Pvd + Prob + Poss
The field has an oil initially in place (OIIP) of 4,383 MMstb: Rubiales 3,472 MMstb and Piriri 911
MMstb. The field wide proved, probable and possible reserves volume is 409 million barrels of
which 96 percent is proved. Additional resources that were not included in the evaluation were
identified in areas adjacent to the possible drilling locations and in outlying areas of lower
thickness pay sand.
The series of tables listed below show the results of the reserves, production, cash flow and
present worth calculations:
Table 1.1
Summary of Oil and Gas Reserves gross and net volumes
Table 1.2
Net Present Value of Future Net Revenue BFIT & AFIT at various discount rates
Table 1.3
Total Future Net Revenue (Undiscounted) revenue and cost cash flows
Table 1.4
Future Net Revenue by Production Group BFIT NPV @ 10%
Table 1.5
Future Net Revenue (Unit Value Basis) by Production Group BFIT NPV @ 10%
Table 1.6
Summary of Pricing and Inflation Rate Assumptions
Table 1.7
Summary of Estimated Development Costs Attributable to Reserves
Table 1.8
Summary of Production Estimates Proved, Probable and Possible Categories
R01021
February 2011
RPS
All references to costs and values in the report are in United States dollars. The net present
value reported is unrisked and does not represent the fair market value of Metas ownership in
the Rubiales Field. The data provided by Meta was the sole source of information for this report.
R01021
February 2011
RPS
2.0
CONCLUSIONS
This reserves certification report was prepared using field data and a field development
investment program as provided by Meta. The conclusions noted below relate to depletion of
the existing wells and implementation of the field development plan as it has been proposed.
Field Gross 3P Reserves at end of concession are 409.1 MMbbls.
Metas Gross and Net 3P Reserves are 171.8 MMbbls and 137.4 MMbbls, respectively.
Three hundred and forty two locations comprise the undeveloped case.
The drilling campaigns in each of the past years have been very successful in finding and
developing oil and in validating the geological model and engineering projections from
earlier studies.
Due to Metas higher working interest, the Piriri concession reserves have more value to
Meta than the reserves to be produced from the Rubiales concession.
Certain step-out locations that were some distance from proved reserves have been
drilled successfully, and as a result significant areas of the reservoir have had crude
volumes re-categorized to proved reserves much sooner than if the drilling program been
restricted to the proved undeveloped locations.
Production and cash flow have been maximized since the pipeline capacity has been
developed on schedule and the water disposal wells and facilities are being drilled and
built as needed to avoid or minimize the curtailment of production due to transportation or
processing limitations.
R01021
February 2011
RPS
3.0
FIELD OVERVIEW
3.1
Ownership
The Rubiales Field is located in the Llanos Basin on the eastern side of Columbia as shown in
Figure 3.1, the Location Map. The Rubiales field is the name given to the combined Rubiales
and Piriri producing concessions. Metas working interest in the Rubiales Field is comprised of a
50% ownership in the Piriri concession (62,432 acres in size) and a 40% ownership in the
Rubiales concession (88,463 acres in size). The boundaries of the properties are shown in
Figure 3.2, the Concession Map. The Rubiales field is productive from 135,361 acres, which
comprises the majority of the entire extent of the concession area of 150,895 acres.
Meta pays a 20% royalty on working interest production.
There are no other burdens or
overriding royalties associated with the concessions. The agreements expire on May 31, 2016.
This relatively close expiry date is the incentive to Meta to develop the field quickly and produce
field reserves as soon as possible.
3.2
Development History
The Rubiales field was discovered in 1981 by Exxon in association with the Tethys operating
group. Three wells were drilled from 1981 to 1982 and on July 1, 1988 a 28 year concession
was granted. Exxon then drilled 14 wells from 1988 to 1993. The field was then acquired by
Coplex Resources in 1994 who drilled 5 additional wells by 1997. Due to financial problems
within the company, the field was shut in until Tethys et al re-acquired it from Coplex in 2000.
Production was re-started in 2001 and two additional wells were drilled for a total of 24 wells at
that time.
In mid-2002 Rubiales Holdings acquired Tethys et al and quickly drilled 14 wells while improving
field operations.
In 2004 Meta Petroleum (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pacific Rubiales)
became the operator of the Rubiales field following a merger of the et al companies with the
result being a 50% ownership in the Piriri concession and a 40% ownership in the Rubiales
concession. In 2005, studies conducted by Meta confirmed the significant potential of the field
and an investment program was approved.
R01021
February 2011
RPS
From 2006 to the present Meta has conducted an aggressive drilling program that has resulted
in a current total of 229 producing wells that are pumping approximately 138,000 barrels of oil
per day at year end. During 2010, the field produced 45.1 MMstb of oil and at year-end had a
cumulative production of 102.7 MMstb. The results of this program are indicated on the field
production plot, Figure 3.3, and on the production plots for the Rubiales and Piriri concessions
on Figures 3.4 and 3.5, respectively. As of year-end 2010, in the fully developed areas of the
field, the wells have been drilled on an average spacing of 81 acres.
Based on a geocelular model constructed by Meta and audited by RPS as part of this reserve
certification process, the field has an oil initially in place (OIIP) of 4,383 MMstb: Rubiales 3,472
MMstb and Piriri 911 MMstb.
Meta has presented a drilling program with 472 additional wells to completely develop the field.
RPS has classified the wells as proved, probable and possible drilling opportunities. Only 344
additional wells were economic and their volume comprises the undeveloped reserves. Other
locations that did not comply with the reserves definitions were classified as contingent
resources.
R01021
February 2011
RPS
4.0
Geoscience
4.1
Geologic Work Process
A new Petra project was created to compare the new wells drilled in 2010 to previous RPS
audits in the field. The purpose was to incorporate the new well data and investigate Metas
data analysis methods.
In this new model, both the Rubiales field and the geologically
contiguous and adjacent Quifa field to the south-west were included. Care was taken to ensure
that the projection system was identical, so that Petrel surfaces could be imported from the
Petrel project to the Petra project and quality controlled. All previous well logs (LAS files) from
older wells were loaded into the new Petra project. All new wells drilled in 2010 were loaded into
the new Petra project. Selected directional surveys were loaded for some key wells to tie to the
cross sections. A network of cross sections was created to check the RPS formation tops and
the OWC in each well. One hundred and eighty seven vertical wells (including a few selected
directional wells) were used in the network of cross sections.
RPS formation tops (Arenas Basales and Oil Water Contacts) were picked following previous
work done by RPS in the field. For new wells, picks were quality controlled by comparing
shallow markers such as the overlying Leon Shale and the significant maximum flooding surface
(hot shale) MFS 17. RPS formation picks were then compared to formation tops provided by
Meta. Any differences under ten feet were disregarded as insignificant. There was 80 percent
agreement between the two sets of picks. Wells with significantly different picks such as the
Quifa 3 in the southwestern area of the field were noted. These different structural picks have
the potential to affect the calculation of oil in place.
The Structure Arenas Basales surface was exported from the Petrel project and imported into
the Petra Project. This surface was analyzed for structural tie to the well data. An anomalous
area was noted at the area of the Rubiales 120 and surrounding area, where the Petrel seismic
interpretation did not seem to tie the well control (Figure 4.1). It is recommended that the
seismic tie be investigated at these locations as a seismic mis-tie could affect the reserves
calculated from the geocellular model. More discussion of the geophysical aspects of the model
is found in the geophysical section.
R01021
February 2011
RPS
The Meta reports were studied and the work flow was analyzed. The geologic comments below
will discuss the stratigraphic and sedimentologic model workflow presented by Meta, and its
potential effect on the oil in place calculation.
4.2
Geologic Comments
Table of comments on Meta Stratigraphic Analysis:

Meta Stratigraphic Analysis
Strat correlation of wells (CAR9 FY and
CAR8 FY markers)
Core description
Core facies interpretation
Environment of deposition based on core
facies
RPS Comments
OK - good correlation, marks shale barriers
(MFS) for the most part but crosses the OWC
so is not a flow unit marker
OK -- good job
OK -- good job
OK good job stacked fluvial channel
environment
Variogram method appears
random lacks predictability?
Yellow highlight denotes topics of discussion.

RPS notes that Meta has done good work in their core description and core facies interpretation
and that the work process meets or exceeds standard industry practices. The Arenas Basales
environment of deposition is a coarse grained stacked fluvial channel environment with many
shale breaks. Well to well correlation is extremely difficult.
The stratigraphic markers picked by Meta called AB, Car8 and Car9 and Paleozoico are a very
reasonable stratigraphic correlation. This work meets or exceeds standard industry practices.
However these stratigraphic markers cross the Oil Water contact as can be seen in Figure 4.2.
Car8 and Car9 markers tie shale beds as possible maximum flooding surfaces. The Oil Water
Contact is not, in most cases, controlled by the shale beds and crosses facies boundaries
indiscriminately.
Meta in its report shows several examples of channel facies developed in the Rubiales field, in
documentation of the section discussing fluvial channel direction. Figure 4.3 (4.3A) shows such
a channel interpretation, or tendency of channel direction, based on close well control. As stated
above, well to well correlation is extremely difficult. In order to predict lithology present in the
next location, Meta used variogram analysis. This is a valid method to predict the statistical
probability of what might be present at a neighboring location. This work process meets a
standard industry practice in areas of poor lateral correlation, random channel distribution and
high reservoir variability.
R01021
February 2011
RPS
Another standard method of analysis would be to create a Gross Sand Isopach of a particular
channel, then a Net Sand Isopach, Net to Gross Sand Ratios, and then to a Net Pay Isopach,
and then to flow units, in order to define channel facies. This method is subject to the geologists
interpretation of channel direction. However, based on Metas drilling experience in the area,
perhaps the true distribution is indeed random.
The two methods end up with very different distributions of lithofacies as Figure 4.3 shows.
Depositional trends appear NW oriented in 4A and north-south in 4B.
It is suggested that mapping methods of Gross Sand and Net Sand isopachs and Net to Gross
sand ratio be used in conjunction with variogram analysis to predict the lithology present in a
particular location.
Figure 4.-4 shows a map from Rubiales 2009 Field Audit, RPS, Net to Gross Sand Ratio, Arenas
Basales Reservoir Interval. In this figure, more sandy areas can be identified in yellow and
orange and more shaly areas in gray.
4.3
Identification of Rock Type
RPS notes that Meta has done high quality work in identification of rock type and
porosity/permeability interaction analysis. The Meta work process meets or exceeds standard
industry practices. Metas integration of Lithofacies and Petrofacies data to create flow unit
divisions based on pore throat size is a very good analysis.
Table of comments on Meta Porosity/Permeability analysis
Well Database, Electric Log Petrophysical Analysis Data

Facies correlation with flow units based on R50
OK good job
Pittman
Core facies tied to petrophysical characteristics
Each facies has particular flow characteristics
OK good job
based on PERMEABILITY and pore throat size
Flow units are based on type of porosity and
OK -- good analysis but then you do not use
it in the CAR8CAR9 layer correlation
PERMEABILITY
Yellow Highlight denotes topic of discussion.
R01021
February 2011
RPS
The
resulting
flow
unit
nomenclature
is
very
useful.
The
implication
of
these
porosity/permeability facies definitions is that these facies define the flow units, Figure 4.5.
As can be observed in the cross section in Figure 4.6, the highest quality porosity and
permeability are consistently present in the oil productive interval, and seldom present in the
rock interval below the oil water contact. It is unknown whether this phenomenon is due to
deposition (coarsest grain size and largest pore throats at the top of the Arenas Basales interval)
or to post depositional diagenetic events. The Gamma Ray however appears just as clean in the
interval below the oil water contact as above.
It is suggested that Meta consider this
phenomenon when analyzing flow units in the field. Figure 4.6 denotes Cross section showing
Gamma Ray, Resistivity, and Lithofacies/petrofacies curve. Most porous lithofacies/petrofacies
(Gigaporosity, Supermegaporosity, and Megaporosity) are highlighted in orange.
It seems that these units (the Giga/Mega Porosity Unit above the oil water contact and the
interval from Oil water contact to top Paleozoico form natural flow units. However, Meta did not
use these flow unit boundaries in definition of cells for the geocellular model. Meta used the top
Arenas Basales and Top Paleozoico and the Car8 and Car9 stratigraphic markers to define flow
units for the geocellular model.
These markers were used to define a 3 layer layer cake model of the reservoir. Cells in the
layer cake model were defined in the x and y directions as 30 meters by 30 meters. Cells were
defined in the z (vertical) direction by an arbitrary division of 20 cells per layer cake (Figure 4.7).
Each cell was then assigned its particular porosity, lithofacies, and water saturation. Cells not
controlled by well data were assigned lithofacies, porosities, and water saturations based on
variogram prediction of what might occur at that cell.
The resulting 3 layer model is shown in Figure 4.8 as the green, yellow and light blue layers in
the 3 dimensional diagram. Water content of cells in the upper green layer (Zone 1) is shown as
dark blue. Oil in place was then calculated in the Petrel geocellular model based on this cell
properties assignment.
The resulting Oil in Place calculation is dependent on all these input parameters: seismic
structure, well tops, lithofacies determination, porosity and permeability calculation, and water
saturations.
The geographic distribution of lithofacies, porosity and permeability, and water
saturation values were governed by the variogram method.
R01021
10
February 2011
RPS
The following three diagrams show distinct different OOIP calculations based on a difference in
structural pick and reservoir properties of a single well, the Quifa 3. Figure 4.9 is an OOIP map
created in November, 2010. After inclusion of the Quifa 3 well with a different structural pick and
different water saturations assigned to the cells (Figure 4.10), a different OOIP map is created in
December, 2010 (Figure 4.11). Note that significant STOOIP is no longer calculated in the
vicinity of the Quifa 3 well.
Table 4.1 shows a summary of analysis of Meta work flow with comments highlighted in yellow
and suggested steps highlighted in blue.
Rubiales Field is a combination hydrodynamic and stratigraphic trap. Hydrodynamic traps can
be defined by residual structure (a paleo structure) differences from a known regional trend, and
by pressure analysis of the aquifer.
Water flows regionally to the area of lower regional
pressure. The most common characteristic of a hydrodynamic trap is a tilted oil water contact.
Another common characteristic is biodegradation of the oil to low gravities, which is also present
in Rubiales field.
Adequate definition of a hydrodynamic trap is normally dependent on sufficient surrounding well

control to establish regional trends. However, the edges of the Rubiales field have not yet been
defined based on the well control provided to RPS.
It is suggested that a hydrodynamic analysis be undertaken to help in predicting hydrocarbon

presence in future wells.
The mapping steps are defined in Eric Dahlbergs publication on
Hydrodynamic Oil Traps.
A key mapping technique is the creation of a residual trend surface Isopach. First one creates a
first order trend surface, and then calculates the residual structural differential from that trend
surface. Mapping software can perform this calculation for every well control point. Figure 4.12
is a first order trend surface of the structure at top of Arenas Basales from well control. Figure
4.13 diagrams the definition of a residual.
Figures 4.14A & B and 4.15A & B are structural and trend residual maps on the Top Arenas
Basales and the Oil Water Contact, respectively. Figure 4.14A, Rubiales Structure Top Arenas
Basales was created based on well control. Note the very slight structural nosing across the
R01021
11
February 2011
RPS
field. Figure 4.14B, Trend Surface Residual of the Structure Top Arenas Basales note in the
yellow and rose colors the residual structural highs over much of the producing field. Note also
the lack of closure (lack of data) to the south and southwest. The edge of this trap is not defined
on the map.
Figure 4.15A, Structure Rubiales Oil Water Contact was also created based on well control.
Note the very slight structural depression across the field.
In Figure 4.15B, Trend Surface
Residual of the Oil Water contact, note in the yellow colors the residual structural lows over
much of the producing field. This suggests that the Oil/Water contact is slightly depressed
underlying the field, as though the oil deposit is like a lens. Note also the lack of closure (lack of
data) to the south and southwest. The edge of this trap is not defined on the map.
When the two residuals are subtracted from one another in a grid to grid operation performed in
mapping software, the result is a map which has fairly close correlation to the producing limits of
the field (Figure 4.16). This mapping method is dependent upon the amount of well or seismic
structural control in the area.
It is also dependent upon the number of data points and
distribution of data documenting the oil water contact. However, one is able to establish some
trends and point to areas of development of probable and possible reserves. The Quifa North
area particularly looks prospective. To the southwest in the Quifa area, there is insufficient data
to clearly define a prospective next location. This may be map edge effect.
These proposed mapping methods may be useful in defining additional field extension or field
limits.
R01021
12
February 2011
RPS
5.0
Petrophysics
From available report: Estudio Integrado de Yacimientos Campo Rubiales. Reporte del Modelo
Estatico 3D, January 2010, it was verified that a deterministic petrophysical study was carried
out following the standards in the Oil & Gas industry, which served as base line to validate all
petrophysical parameters and models used by Meta to build the current static model for
Rubiales, Piriri and Quifa fields.
Petrophysical data provided to RPS by Meta included well logs in an Interactive Petrophysics
Database ver 3.5. The RPS petrophysical work was focused on the review of the vertical wells
drilled during year 2010.
Figure 5.1 shows a base map with the existing wells in Rubiales, Piriri and Quifa fields.
Highlighted are the selected vertical wells drilled during year 2010. Fifty one (51) vertical wells
within Rubiales-Piriri fields were reviewed in this study and fourteen (14) vertical wells within
Quifa field. Reviewed wells are listed in the next two paragraphs.
Rubialess wells: RB-086, RB-088, RB-116, RB-151, RB-152, RB-243, RB-244, RB-245, RB265, RB-269, RB-270, RB-271, RB-272, RB-273, RB-274, RB-275, RB-276, RB-277, RB-278,
RB-280, RB-281, RB-315, RB-316, RB-317, RB-318, RB-352, RB-353, RB-355, RB-356, RB358, RB-359, RB-360, RB-361, RB-370, RB-371, RB-372, RB-396, RB-397, RB-399, RB-400,
RB-408, RB-409, RB-410, RB-411, RB-412, RB-413, RB-415, RB-416, RB-440, RB-441, RB442, RB-443, and RB-452.
QUIFAs wells; QUIFA-005, QUIFA-006, QUIFA-007, QUIFA-008, QUIFA-009, QUIFA-010,

QUIFA-011, QUIFA-012, QUIFA-013, QUIFA-14, QUIFA-017, QUIFA-018, QUIFA-031, QUIFA032.
5.1
Petrophysical Work Process
The methodology followed in the audit of Metas Petrophysical Model, comprises the review and
validation of all parameters and calculation models used by Meta, to produce the input for the
Geocellular model used for volumetric estimation of OOIP.
R01021
13
February 2011
RPS
5.2.
Petrophysical Data, Parameters and Models
In general, all vertical wells include a complete suite of well logs that allow the detailed
correlation of stratigraphic units, as well as the evaluation of Clay Volume (Vcl), Porosity (Phie),
Water Saturation (Sw), Permeability (K), Net Reservoir Thickness (NetRes), Net Pay Thickness
(NetPay) and Oil Water Contacts (OWC), among others. In very few cases operational problems
have limited the acquisition of the complete suite of well logs.
The typical suite of well logs in the wells drilled in year 2006 and beyond comprises: Array
Induction (AIT), High Resolution Density, Thermal Neutron Porosity, Gamma Ray, Photoelectric
Factor, Caliper, Bit Size. An example is shown below:
MNEM.UNIT
DEPT .F
AHT10.OHMM:
AHT20.OHMM:
AHT30.OHMM:
AHT60.OHMM:
AHT90.OHMM:
BS .IN:
GDEV .DEG:
GR .GAPI:
GTEM .DEGF:
HCAL .IN:
HDRA .G/C3:
HTEM .DEGF:
ICV .F3:
IHV .F3:
PEFZ .:
RHOZ .G/C3:
RXOZ .OHMM:
SP .MV:
TENS .LBF:
TNPH .CFCF:
DESCRIPTION (API Code)

DEPTH (BOREHOLE) {F10.1}
Array Induction Two Foot Resistivity A10 {F13.4}
Bit Size {F13.4}
HGNS Deviation {F13.4}
Gamma-Ray {F13.4}
Generalized Borehole Temperature {F13.4}
HRCC Cal. Caliper {F13.4}
HRDD Density Correction {F13.4}
HTC Temperature {F13.4}
Integrated Cement Volume {F13.4}
Integrated Hole Volume {F13.4}
HRDD Standard Resolution Formation Photoelectric Factor {F13.4}
HRDD Standard Resolution Formation Density {F13.4}
MCFL Standard Resolution Invaded Zone Resistivity {F13.4}
Spontaneous Potential {F13.4}
Cable Tension {F13.4}
Thermal Neutron Porosity {F13.4}
Along the development cycle of the fields, Meta has recovered about 340 feet of whole cores
and 15 water samples (MDT). Information derived from the core description and analysis has
been integrated into the petrophysical analysis and reservoir model. The unconsolidated nature
of the sediments in the Arenas Basales Interval has limited the recovery of cores in these fields.
R01021
14
February 2011
RPS
Water Resistivity Water resistivity has been measured in 15 samples recovered from MDTs.
High resistivity values indicate fresh water of around 1,000 ppm of equivalent NaCl.
Meta
reports the use of Water Salinity value of 1045 ppm NaCl and Water Resistivity (Rw) of 5.85
Ohm-m at 60 oF in the petrophysical evaluation of the wells. This parameter was verified using
the Pickett Plot technique as shown in Figure 5.2.
Wellbore Geometry Relationships between the Bit Size (BS) curve and Caliper (HCAL) define
the presence of Mud Cake and Washouts.
Drilling and mud parameter during the drilling
process are set to try to produce the better wellbore geometry to avoid large washouts and lower
the impact of bad hole in the quality of the log data, formation damage and completion costs.
From the 51 vertical wells drilled in Rubiales fields during 2010, a significant number of wells
show moderate to medium washouts along the Arenas Basales Interval, while some wells show
a perfect wellbore geometry.
RPS interprets this to mean that different drilling and mud
parameters were applied to the different wells. Since the ideal situation is to have a perfect
wellbore geometry, RPS recommends the review the drilling programs applied in the 2010
drilling campaign in order to identify the best practices to be implemented in the future.
Figure 5.3 shows the histograms of the Caliper curve (HCAL) for the Rubiales, Piriri and Quifa
wells. In the Rubiales-Piriri wells, the nominal BS is 8.5 inches and HCAL varies from 7 to 13
inches, which means that, mud cake reached a maximum thickness of 1.5 inches and washouts
reached a maximum of 4.5 inches. In the Quifa wells, nominal BS is 8.5 inches and HCAL
varies from 8 to 9.8 in, which means that mud cake reached a maximum thickness of 0.5 inches
and washouts reached a maximum of 1.3 inches.
Figures 5.8 to 5.55 show the wellbore geometry of each vertical wells analyzed.
Well
RUBIALES-151 (Figure 5.12) is a good example of good wellbore geometry while RUBIALES360 (Figure 5.19) is a good example of bad wellbore geometry. All Quifa wells analyzed, show
good wellbore.
Clay Volume Clay volume has been determined using the Gamma Ray Index Method, based
on the excellent definition of the GR curve as lithology discriminator in this fluvial environment,
and that GR curve is available in all wells.
Vcl = IGR = [(GRlog Grmin)/(GRmax Grmin)]
R01021
15
February 2011
RPS
Vcl:
Clay Volume (v/v)
IGR:
Gamma Ray Index (adm)
GRlog
Gamma Ray reading of formation
GRmin;
Minimun Gamma Ray (Sand)
GRmax:
Maximum Gamma Ray (Shale)
Composited Logs, prepared for each of the 51 wells analyzed in this report, show the GR curve
and GR derived Vcl. Neutron-Density derived Vcl compare very close with GR derived Vcl.
Borehole washout observed in a number of vertical wells drilled in the 2010 drilling campaign,
limits the application of the Neutron-Density cross plot as Vcl indicator.
Mineral Identification from Spectral Gamma Ray - Three wells: QUIFA-8, RUBIALES-46 and
RUBIALES-366 have Spectral Gamma Ray Logs available. Figure 5.4 shows the Potasium and
Thorium concentration Crossplot with predominance of high Thorium values and low Potassium
(Wells RUBIALES-46 and QUIFA-8). Well RUBIALES-366 (Core data) shows values in a range
of Thorium, Clorite, Montmorillonite and Illite minerals.
Effective Porosity - Meta calculated Effective Porosity (PHIE) from Neutron-Density derived
total porosity corrected by shale. Hydrocarbon effect is insignificant, since it is heavy oil (12.5
o
API). Core-Log calibration in well RUBIALES-46 shown in Figure 5.5, demonstrates the validity
of the Neutron-Density method.
The reservoir quality of Rubiales, Piriri and Quifa fields varies from well-developed clean thick
sandstones to more shaly thin sandstones. The reservoir is composed of high quality rock in
terms of porosity and permeability. Porosity ranges between 21% - 38%, with 28% average.
Permeability averages 16,400 mD (Cored well RUBIALES-46). Porosity is lightly affected by the
weight of the sediments and fluids. The better rock quality from the porosity and permeability
point of view is in the oil zone between the Top of Arenas Basales and the Oil-Water contact.
This indicates that hydrocarbon infilling the pore space preserves the porosity by preventing
digenesis by clay minerals precipitation. The sedimentary environment is described as fluvial
near shoreline, with complex vertical and lateral relationship between sand bodies and shales.
The Oil Water Contact (OWC) is observed at a different depth in each well, indicating a tilted
OWC. Composited Logs of the 51 wells analyzed are shown in Figures 5.8 to 5.55.
R01021
16
February 2011
RPS
Figures 5.6 and 5.7 show Neutron-Density Crossplots as examples of the high porosity observed
in the Arenas Basales interval in selected wells located in Rubiales, Piriri and Quifa fields.
Water Saturation A Dual Water Model was used by Meta for calculation of Water Saturation
(Sw). The dual-water concept was developed for the interpretation of resistivity in shaly sands.
This model considers there to be two waters in the pore space: far water, which is the normal
formation water; and near water (or clay-bound water) in the electrical double layer near the clay
surface.
The clay-bound water consists of clay counter-ions and the associated water of
hydration. This model has been well accepted by the industry. Rubiales, Piriri and Quifa fields fit
into the category of shaly sand reservoir.
Specific parameters for this Dual Water Model are supported by core analysis and industry
standard cross plot methods.
Net Reservoir & Net Pay Thicknesses Cut offs used by Meta for NetRes and NetPay
thicknesses are well calibrated with the definition of the Oil Zone in the Arenas Basales from the
petrophysical evaluation in each well.
NET RESERVOIR
NET PAY
VCL<=
25%
25%
PHIE>=
20%
20%
SW<=
75%
Figures 5.8 to 5.55 show the graphic method using composited logs that includes Gamma Ray,
Resistivity, VCL, Effective Porosity, Water Saturation, Bulk Volume of Water (BVW), geological
tops, NetRes and NetPay flags; have been used for each well to QC the outcomes from the
petrophysical modeling and facilitates the integration in the geocellular model.
R01021
17
February 2011
RPS
6.0
Static Geocellular Model
The geocellular model of the Rubiales-Pirir-Quifa field utilized in this evaluation was generated
by Meta. RPS performed the auditing and validation of the model on the last trimester of 2010.
The geocellular model was built using 2D and 3D seismic interpretation, well log correlations,
defined stratigraphic units, lithofacies data, petrofacies data, and petrophysical evaluation. More
than 185 wells, four well tops, and 41 fault surfaces were used in the building of the geocelular
model. The Petrel application was used as the database and to build the geocellular model.
RPS carried out a detailed analysis, auditing, and validation of the structural frame created in the
model, as well as of the log information loaded and the approaches and algorisms used to carry
out the spatial distribution of the data. Finally, the volumes created from the properties of facies,
net to gross, porosity, and water saturation were visualized tridimensionally and used as input to
calculate the STOIIP. In conclusion, the geocelular model of Rubiales-Pirir-Quifa is consistent
and honors all the original input data.
The following process was conducted to support the objective of reserves certification and
validate and improve field development drilling program.
The review and analysis of the geocellular model was done in five steps:
First, the geometric and structural frame of the model was analyzed and validated. The
correlation between geological tops, seismic surfaces and fault surfaces was analyzed,
validated and visualized. In the same way, the fault pillar gridding, layering, gridding,
boundaries, etc. were reviewed and tested. The geometry of the model is very consistent
with the input data. Figure 6.1 shows, tridimensionally, the top of basement together with
fault surfaces used to generate the structural framework.
Second, log wells, especially, the gamma ray, SP, v shale, porosity, water saturation,
R50, and facies were diagramed and evaluated the correlation among logs and wells.
Also, properties on the model were used to validate the correlation on cell label. Several
cross sections involving almost all the vertical wells were generated to validate the well
correlations among geological tops, petrophysical parameters and properties of cells cut
by wells. Figure 6.2 shows an example of a cross section with the well-correlation of GR,
porosity, water saturation, and facie parameters together with the population of the cells
cut by wells, and the geological tops. The match among log data and cell population is
very satisfactory.
R01021
18
February 2011
RPS
Third, the volume of rock was limited within the structural frame, divided by three zones
according with the well 4 geological tops, 60 layers, and 41 fault surfaces, creating more
than 15.000.000 cells of 100 by 100 meters.
Particular attention was paid to the
histogram distribution of data in the cells cut by wells (Cell-wells) and the method used
for the population of well-cells as arithmetic mean, root mean square, midpoint pick, etc.
Finally, well log histograms presented a consistent correlation of data distribution in
original wells and upscaled data. It is important to point out that the facies population of
cells and spatial distribution was done combining lithofacies and petrofacies data. Figure
6.3 shows the model divided into 60 layers and more than 15 million cells. The structural
effect has been removed, to make possible the visualization of the cells. The concession
limits (red polygons) are shown as references.
Fourth, vertical distribution of well data, normalization of data, stochastic parameters,

geostatistics algorithms and results of the spatial distribution of data was reviewed.
Hundreds of variograms and vertical distribution functions were generated and tested. A
particular analysis was carried out in the petrofacies and lithofacies spatial distributions.
All the available algorithms were analyzed as Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS)
Stochastic, Kriging Interpolation, Kriging by GSLIB (Geostatistical Software Library),
Truncated Gaussian Simulation, etc. Finally, the spatial distribution throughout the 15
million of cells of the model was carried out applying Truncated Gaussian simulation for
the facies distribution and the Sequential Gaussian Simulation for the petrophysical
properties. Figure 6.4 shows the vertical distribution of the facies for zone 1, variogram
analysis for zone 1 and facie R1, and the algorithm-mathematical parameter for the zone
1 of the geocellular model, and the facie R1. This process was repeated for each zone
and facie of the model. The final result of this step was the generation of volumes of
petrophysical properties with information in each cell of the model.
Fifth, several runs of the geocelular model were done to calculate and analyze the Stock
Tank Oil Initially In Place (STOIIP) values. STOOIP was calculated for the Rubiales,
Pirir and Quifa concession boundaries, as well for each facies, and each segment.
Tables of results were passed to RPS engineering personnel, to be used in the reserve
volume calculation and the categorization of the proved, probable and possible reserves.
Based on a geocelular model constructed by Meta and audited by RPS as part of this
reserve certification process, the Rubiales field has an oil initially in place (OIIP) of 4,383
MMstb: Rubiales 3,472 MMstb and Piriri 911 MMstb.
R01021
19
February 2011
RPS
This geocelular model described above is a scaled representation of the real oilfield where
the geological characteristics and fluid conditions can be studied, analyzed, quantified,
simulated and predicted. Figure 6.5 presents the volumes of facies, porosity, and water
saturation generated in the geocellular model. These volumes were multiplied one each
other, to get the Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place (STOIIP) volume as depicted in Figure 6.5.
Also, for the support of reserve calculation net sand and barrels per cell maps were
generated. Figure 6.6 shows the barrels per cell map.
R01021
20
February 2011
RPS
7.0
Reserves Determination
7.1
Discussion
The Rubiales field produces low gravity, highly viscous oil. The recovery mechanism in the field
is primary recovery, with strong pressure support from a bottom water aquifer. In such a field,
the recovery factors under traditional oil field developments using vertical wells can be expected
to be relatively low, in the range of 10 percent to 20 percent of OIIP. To maximize the recovery
efficiency, Meta has pursued a development drilling plan that will increase the well density and
incorporate a significant number of horizontal wells.
The Rubiales field crude oil has low solution gas content, as represented by the gas-oil-ratio that
is estimated to be 5 scf/stb. As a result, there is insufficient produced gas to warrant gas sales.
Some produced gas is used as field fuel and the balance is flared. RPS has not attributed any
gas reserves to the field.
Two separate concessions hold the reserves in the Rubiales field: Rubiales and Piriri. Each
concession has a unique operating and net revenue interest, thus the reserves and economics
are calculated separately for each concession and then summed to get the fieldwide figures.
7.2
Developed Reserves
Reserves estimates were made using production performance analysis, volumetric estimates
and production analogues. Analysis of the change in production rates, water-oil ratio and oil cut
as a function of cumulative production and time was performed to predict the ultimate
recoverable volumes for the producing wells. Parameters used to specify the shut in conditions
were two percent oil cut at a producing rate of 30 and 150 barrels of oil per day for vertical and
horizontal wells, respectively.
These minimum operational production rates are dictated by
water handling capacity limitations and not due to an economic limit or flow assurance problems.
An exponential decline curve shape was used for the rate forecasts, with application of
hyperbolic performance where well performance supports the projection after the initial flush
production.
Plots of the oil rate versus cumulative production, oil cut versus cumulative
production and water oil ratio versus cumulative production for the producing wells were
analyzed.
R01021
21
February 2011
RPS
Reserves for proposed wells and wells that were completed within the past few months that have
not had sufficient production decline performance were determined by using the average
estimated ultimate recovery and peak production rate values determined for existing wells with
sufficient history, and applying those to the drilling locations and the locations of the recently
completed wells. All of the wells used in determining these averages are located in the field,
have perforated the subject sand interval, and have sufficient performance history to be a good
basis for rate projections. Further detailed discussion of the analysis method follows in Section
7.3.
The Rubiales field has been developed with 362 wells: 154 verticals, 206 horizontal and 2
deviated wells.
The typical drilling program involves a centralized vertical well with five
horizontal wells drilled outward from the same pad location. A well cluster of this design typically
drains an area of 485 acres. The horizontal wells typically drill a distance between 500 and
1,200 feet through the reservoir. The recovery from the horizontal wells exceeds that of the
vertical wells by a factor of more than three.
characteristics also.
The wells have different performance
The vertical wells initially exhibit a lower average annual exponential
decline rate, and the horizontal wells initially produce at over four times the rate of vertical wells
and exhibit a hyperbolic decline.
The cumulative field production to year end 2010 was 102.7 MM barrels of oil, an increment of
45.1 MM barrels of oil with respect to year end 2009. The proved reserves for the producing
wells on December 31, 2010 are 112.1 MM barrels of oil. The ultimate recovery (to the end of
the concession term on May 31, 2016) from all wells drilled to date is estimated to be 214.8 MM
barrels of oil.
As of December 2010 there were 112 wells with shut in status. Some of the wells have prior
production history, a lesser number have been tested only and have no cumulative production.
Meta has advised that 55 of these wells are scheduled to be placed on production in 2011.
These wells were forecasted and scheduled according to Metas guidelines, and the reserves
were included in the proved developed non-producing category. A total of 36.3 MMBbls were
assigned to the proved developed non-producing category for both Rubiales and Piriri fields:
25.8 MMBbls and 10.6 MMBbls, respectively. The 57 remaining shut in wells are assumed to
have no potential since they were not part of the re-vitalization program, and have not been
assigned reserves..
R01021
22
February 2011
RPS
7.3
Undeveloped Reserves and Resources
To estimate the reserves potential of Metas drilling program, a statistical analysis of past
production was used in combination with the Petrel static model. The net pay sand of the wells
that have sufficient performance to perform decline curve analysis was plotted against the
estimated ultimate recovery for both the vertical and horizontal wells. Correlations between the
estimated ultimate recovery and the STOIIP contour map from the Petrel model were considered
for both verticals and horizontal wells. Analysis of the initial production rate and estimated
ultimate recovery was also considered.
Forty vertical wells and 87 horizontals wells with
sufficient history were used to calculate the average recovery per well type. As a result the
horizontal wells have an average recovery that is higher than the vertical wells: 1,223,000 stb
versus 476,000 stb, respectively.
A total of 472 locations that were included in Metas development plan have been evaluated.
The wells were reviewed separately for each concession (Rubiales with 398 and Piriri with 74)
since the ownership is different for each concession. The reserves determination was done in
two phases:
1. Assignment of reserves category based on proximity to existing production wells, and
2. Assignment of reserves volumes based on Petrel STOIIP cell values.
Phase 1
A base map containing the existing producing wells and Metas proposed drilling locations was
used to assign the reserve classification based on proximity to production. Proved reserves
were assigned to new locations in areas that are undrilled and adjacent to existing wells within
the proved area of the reservoir that could reasonably be judged as continuous and being
commercially productive on the basis of available geoscience and engineering data. Probable
reserves were assigned to areas of the reservoirs that were adjacent to proved areas but where
data control or interpretations of available data was less certain.
Possible reserves were
assigned to areas of the reservoirs adjacent to probable areas where data control and
interpretations of available data were progressively less certain.
Areas of the reservoir where the Petrel model indicated the reservoir should be present outside
of the proved, probable and possible areas were designated as areas in which Metas proposed
wells would be drilled for oil volume in the resource category. The wells needed to develop
R01021
23
February 2011
RPS
these resources were given drilling location names and volumes, but production and cash flow
projections were not made.
The four hundred seventy two locations in Metas development program were classified as
follows:
Proved
370 locations
Probable
70 locations
Possible
22 locations
Resources
10 locations
Phase 2
Each of the proposed locations was identified on a fieldwide Petrel map that showed contours of
stock tank oil initially in place (STOIIP), Figure 6.5. The contours represent the STOIIP for a 100
meter by 100 meter cell surface area with a vertical capture of the entire net pay sand thickness
for the one to five sand members in the cell.
The estimated ultimate recovery and STOOIP contour value for each existing well with sufficient
history was analyzed to determine if a useful correlation exists. The scatter to the data suggests
that a definitive relationship between the parameters is not present at this time and that the
recovery from proposed locations is difficult to predict from the STOOIP contour map. Despite
the scatter in the data, the average relationships are reflective of the historical production data
and are valid for the prediction of estimated reserves for large numbers of locations such as
those within the Meta drilling program. The average estimated recovery for each STOIIP cell
value for a vertical and horizontal well is 3.83 and 13.6 barrels, respectively.
To estimate the initial producing rate for new wells, the peak rate and STOOIP contour value for
each existing well with sufficient history was also analyzed to determine if a useful correlation
exists.
Again, the scatter to the data suggests that a definitive relationship between the
parameters is not present at this time and that the initial rate from proposed locations is difficult
to predict from the STOOIP contour map.
Despite the scatter in the data, the average
relationships are reflective of the historical production data and are valid for the prediction of
initial rate for large numbers of locations such as those within the Meta drilling program. The
average estimated initial production rate for each STOIIP cell value for a vertical and horizontal
well is 4.80 and 20.58 barrels per day, respectively.
R01021
24
February 2011
RPS
The determination of reserves and production forecasts was made following the next steps:
1. The estimated ultimate recovery per STOIIP contour for vertical and horizontal wells
having production history was determined to be 3.83 and 13.60 barrels per STOIIP
contour per cell unit.
2. The estimated reserves for future locations were calculated using the above
recoveries multiplied by the discrete STOIIP contour where the wells are spotted to
be drilled.
3. The initial (peak) production rate for each well was determined using the average
peak rate for each STOOIP cell value of 4.80 and 20.58 barrels per day for vertical
and horizontal wells, respectively. The production forecast was based on recovery of
the estimated reserves to abandonment rates of 30 bopd and 150 bopd for vertical
and horizontal wells, respectively.
The horizontal wells were forecast using a
hyperbolic decline exponent of 0.5

4. These production and reserves forecasting methods were used for each location that
was scheduled to be drilled prior to the end of the concession period.
5. The wells were scheduled according to Metas drilling program of 5 horizontal wells
and 2 vertical wells per month, starting in January 2011 and finalizing the drilling
program in December 2015.
6. The well schedule had to comply with a production plateau of 210 MBOPD.
As part of the year-end 2009 report, the future wells with the lowest expected reserves were
analyzed to determine profitability; and all forecasted wells were found to be profitable. A similar
analysis was not deemed necessary for this report since drilling costs are lower, operating
expenses per barrel are lower and forecasted average oil sales prices are approximately the
same as last year.
In summary, there are 342 scheduled locations having 261 MMbbls of proved, probable and
possible oil reserves and 114 locations having 96 MMbbls of contingent resources. Twelve
locations had a STOOIP contour of zero and four were uneconomic, therefore no reserves were
assigned to these fourteen locations.
One condition for undeveloped reserves potential to be included as reserves in this report is to
have a stated intention by the operator to drill and produce the wells. It is noted that Meta has
consistently met or exceeded the number of wells it has budgeted in a given year. Meta has
R01021
25
February 2011
RPS
indicated their intention to drill the wells and has provided the drilling schedule for 2011, which
was used as guidance to continuing the drilling program through 2015. The majority of the
locations in the earlier years are proved wells, with the majority of the probable and possible
locations being drilled in the later years.
7.4
Summary
Reserves to End of Concession Term
Table 7.1 shows the reserves and annual production forecast by concession with a field total
until contract expiration on May 31, 2016. Approximately 72% of the fields 3P potential ultimate
recovery, or 511.8 MM barrels, should be produced by that date. A summary of the reserves is
shown below:
Rubiales Field Reserves at December 31, 2010 (to Expiration of Concessions)

MMBO
Proved
Developed
Undeveloped
148.4
245.7
394.1
Undeveloped
14.5
1P Reserves
Probable
2P Reserves
Possible
408.6
Undeveloped
3P Reserves
0.5
409.1
Rubiales Field Potential Ultimate Recovery (to depletion)

CUM
MMstb
MMstb
RE (%)
Cumulative Production @ Dec 31, 2010
102.7
102.7
2.3
Total 3P Reserves @ Jun 2016
409.1
511.8
9.4
Resource Volumes
95.9
607.7
2.2
Forecast Production from June 2016 to
105.5
713.2
2.4
depletion
R01021
26
CUM
RE (%)
2.3
11.7
13.9
16.3
February 2011
RPS
8.0
Production Forecasting
The Rubiales field was discovered in 1981; however produced only periodically until 2002 when
production was reported continuously. After Meta obtained control of the operation of the field in
2004 the production increased until it reached 138 MBOPD in December 2010 from 229 wells.
The production for the Rubiales field was forecasted from January 1, 2011 to the expiration of
the concession on May 31, 2016 to reach a production plateau of 210 MBOPD, as specified by
Meta, Figure 8.1. The field has 229 producing wells in the concessions with the associated
reserves volumes during the concession license period as shown in the table below. These
wells comprise the proved producing field wide case.
Proved Developed Producing Reserves
Rubiales Field
Producing Wells
Forecast
Production, MMbbls
Rubiales Concession
146
84.4
Piriri Concession
83
27.7
Total Field
229
112.1
Fifty five shut in wells were scheduled to be back on production in 2011. The production from
these wells during the concession period was scheduled following Metas guidelines.
The
volumes are classified as proved non-producing reserves as shown in the following table:
Proved Developed Non-Producing Reserves
Rubiales Field
Shut in Wells
Forecast
Production, MMbbls
Rubiales Concession
41
25.7
Piriri Concession
14
10.6
Total Field
55
36.3
The Rubiales field has 342 locations in the drilling program that is forecasted to continue into
2015. The locations are expected to generate 261 MM barrels of oil before the end of the
concession period.
The table below shows the reserves volume split between the proved,
probable and possible categories as well as the number of locations in each.
R01021
27
February 2011
RPS
Undeveloped Reserves
Proved Undeveloped
Locations
Rubiales Field
Count
Probable Undeveloped
Locations
Possible Undeveloped
Locations
Forecast
Production
MMbbls
Count
Forecast
Production
MMbbls
Count
Forecast
Production
MMbbls
Rubiales Concession
251
205.5
23
11.1
0.5
Piriri Concession
56
40.1
3.4
Total Field
307
245.6
32
14.5
0.5
The production forecasts for each of the drilling programs are shown in the cash flow forecast
evaluations to be discussed in Section 9.0 Determination of Value. Forecasts of the production
performance by reserves category were created following the list of new locations and the 2011
drilling schedule provided by Meta as shown on Figure 8.2. This schedule of development has
assumptions that include the number of rigs that would be contracted by year as well as the time
it would take to drill and complete a typical well.
The production forecasts of the field
development plan were scheduled on an unrisked basis.
A total of 91 water disposal wells are planned to be drilled from 2011 through 2015 by Meta as
shown in the following drilling schedule:
Water Disposal Well Count
R01021
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Total
Horizontal
17
22
15
15
78
Vertical
13
Total
20
25
18
18
10
91
28
February 2011
RPS
9.0
Determination of Value
9.1
Ownership
Time Period
The assessment of value for the Rubiales field was calculated for the production forecast from
January 1, 2011 through to the end of the Piriri and Rubiales concession contracts on May 31,
2016. Both of the concessions expire on the same date; and any reserves that remain after this
date are not recoverable by Meta Petroleum. The effective date for discounting of field value in
the evaluation is January 1, 2011.
Interests
Meta has different working and revenue interests in the two concessions as follows:
Rubiales
Piriri
Working interest
40%
50%
Net Revenue interest
32%
40%
The royalty due from crude oil production that is sold from each concession is 20 percent.
Natural gas production is negligible and is not metered or sold. The economic analysis includes
the crude oil / naptha blend as the sales product. Royalty is paid on the crude oil but not on the
naptha. Thus, the royalty in the economic model is based on a ratio of crude oil at 20 percent
royalty and the naptha that has no royalty obligation. The net revenue share that was input into
the model to properly reflect the ownership of pipeline volume to sales is 82.45 percent.
9.2
Determination of Volumes
Production
The Piriri and Rubiales concessions each have value in the proved producing, proved nonproducing, and proved, probable and possible undeveloped categories.
report are presented unrisked.
All volumes in this
Appendix 1 is an exhibit that is taken from the Petroleum
Resources Management System (PRMS) report that was issued in 2007 by the Oil and Gas
R01021
29
February 2011
RPS
Reserves Committee of the Society of Petroleum Engineers and was reviewed and jointly
sponsored by the World Petroleum Council (WPC), the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists (AAPG) and the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers (SPEE). The PRMS
report contains guidelines regarding the relative risk and uncertainty of recovery for the various
reserves categories that are contained within this reserves certification report. The reserves and
economics evaluations that were performed in this report followed the guidelines that were
provided in this exhibit. A summary of the well count that is associated with each reserves
category is as follows:
Proved Producing As of year-end 2010 there were 229 wells producing oil.
Proved Non-Producing There are 55 wells with past production or tests that are
scheduled to be re-completed in 2011.
Proved Undeveloped 307 locations are in close proximity to prior production.
Probable Undeveloped 32 locations offset the proved undeveloped locations.
Possible Undeveloped 5 locations offset the probable undeveloped locations.
Table 7.1 shows the annual production forecast that is developed from the above re-completion
and drilling program for the Rubiales field by concession and reserves category.
Lease Fuel
Some of the oil production is consumed as fuel in the field to heat the crude and enable the
separation of the oil from the water to be more efficient. While the produced volumes have
increased as the field is developed, the fuel volume has increased also. The current projection
of fuel consumption in 2011 is 1,732 barrels per day, rising to 3,395 barrels per day in 2016.
Table 9.1 shows the forecasted annual crude volume to be consumed as fuel. The fuel volume
was scheduled by allocation to the proved, probable and possible reserves categories for each
concession.
Sales
R01021
30
February 2011
RPS
The annual production volumes from 2010 through 2016 in each reserves category, by
concession, were reduced by subtracting the oil consumed for lease fuel to determine the crude
volume that is to be sold. The oil volumes that are trucked or pipelined to sales at Covenas for
export are diluted by blending with naptha to increase the API gravity to meet pipeline and/or
sales specifications. This naptha volume plus the crude sales volumes (field production less
lease fuel consumption) comprise the total sales volumes. Table 9.1 shows the annual naptha
purchases and the annual net sales volumes. These sales volumes are the volumes that are
entered into the economic analysis. The costs of naptha purchase and transportation to the field
are treated as a field operating cost. Also, from the present through December 2011 Meta
forecasts the sale of 4,160 barrels per day of 12.5 degree API gravity crude to the local
Colombian market via trucking without the addition of naptha.
9.3
Marketing
Oil Price
The forecasted annual price of WTI benchmark oil was provided by the RPS Strategic Planning
Department in London in January 2011. The produced oil from Rubiales is 12.5 degrees API
gravity, a low gravity that has downward price adjustments due to quality. The oil sale price
realized by Meta is less than WTI and is dependent on the gravity (quality) and volume of crude
which reaches the various sales points. Meta provided the sales prices it realized in 2010.
A volume-weighted average price differential was calculated annually for future years using the
volumes projected to be sold at the various sales points and the differentials actually incurred at
those points in 2010. This differential was applied as a percentage to the forecasted annual WTI
price and the resulting price, shown in Table 9.2, was used in the cash flow analysis.
significant volume of oil is still being trucked as pipeline capacity expansion continues. Trucking
of the oil is scheduled to end in December 2011; afterwards all the oil will be transported through
the pipelines.
Transportation
From field discovery through mid 2009, all of the production from the Rubiales field was trucked
to sales. However, as trucking is very expensive and the excessive traffic damages the dirt
roads within the field, Meta opted to install a pipeline to export the crude sales. During 2009,
R01021
31
February 2011
RPS
Meta constructed and commissioned a 235 km 24 inch pipeline to increase export capacity,
increase safety and lower transportation costs for crude oil from the field.
The pipeline originates in the Rubiales Field and initially transported 65,000 barrels per day in its
first phase. The pipeline route goes from the field to Monterrey where it ties into existing pipeline
facilities which transport oil to the Pacific coast at Covenas where the oil is loaded onto oil
tankers for export. In the near future, approximately 50,000 barrels per day of diluted Rubiales
oil will also flow from Monterrey through Cusiana to Banadia and then to Covenas. The pipeline
routes are shown schematically on Figure 9.1. Because Metas and Ecopetrols field production
will be sold in the pipeline together, the gross field production plus blended naptha is used to
determine transported pipeline volumes.
The scheduled growth of pipeline capacity, to be
accomplished by adding more pumping horsepower as the field volume requires, is as follows:
9.4
Added Pumping
Pipeline Capacity
Capacity Completion
Barrels per day
January 2011
170,000
February 2011
180,000
April 2011
220,000
September 2011
330,000
Costs
The investment program to develop the Rubiales field reserves with the associated infrastructure
was created in 2007 when the field potential was established.
Subsequent drilling and
construction to this date has generally followed the original plan and resulted in a substantial
investment and increase in production during the past three years. The forecasted expenditures
appear to be sufficient to optimize field recovery prior to the expiration of the concessions on
May 31, 2016.
The field development has included drilling oil production and water disposal wells, recompleting shut in wells, building facilities to process produced fluids and to dispose of produced
water, an extensive system of flowlines and water disposal lines, and the construction of tankage
and lines for the purchase, handling and blending of naptha which is necessary to increase the
oil gravity to pipeline specifications.
R01021
32
February 2011
RPS
Investments - Drilling
A typical producing well program consists of one vertical well in a centralized pad location with
up to five horizontal wells drilled outward from the same pad area.
Costs for the location
preparation, generators and pipelines are included in the well costs. The drilling well costs were
provided by Meta as follows:
Well Type
Cost per well
Production well horizontal
$1,550,000
Production well vertical
$1,600,000
Disposal well horizontal
$1,250,000
Disposal well vertical
$1,400,000
These costs have been reviewed by RPS, including comparison with Metas historical drilling
cost in the field, and deemed to be reasonable.
The producing well drilling program investments and locations through the end of the concession
were provided by Meta. RPS scheduled the timing of wells, honoring Metas budgeted drilling
program in the early phases of the program, recognizing that Meta has consistently met its
production goals by adjusting the drilling schedule as development progresses. The costs were
assigned by the location of each well to its concession and reserves category. The schedule for
drilling the disposal wells (timing and well type) was provided by Meta. Disposal well costs were
distributed to each concession and split by the proportional reserves volume in each reserves
category. No disposal well cost was distributed to the proved producing reserves cases because
these volumes already have water disposal capacity.
The drilling program is scheduled to continue uninterrupted into 2015. As part of the year-end
2009 report, the future wells with the lowest expected reserves were analyzed to determine
profitability. All forecasted wells were found to be profitable with payouts of six months or less,
making it attractive to continue the drilling program through 2015. A similar analysis was not
deemed necessary for this report since drilling costs are lower, operating expenses per barrel
are lower and forecasted average oil sales prices are approximately the same as last year.
The cost for a well re-completion was provided by Meta to be $250,000. A review of the shut in
wells across the field by Meta personnel resulted in a list of 55 re-work opportunities that were
R01021
33
February 2011
RPS
reviewed by RPS. An analysis of the past performance of these wells indicates the potential to
re-establish production.
Some of these wells were returned to production in 2010 and the
remaining re-completions are scheduled to be completed in 2011.
The forecasted annual drilling and re-completion investments are shown on Table 9.3.
Investments - Facility
The work to expand the capacity of the field infrastructure continues concurrently with the drilling
program. The metering and processing facilities, water injection pumps and lines, and naptha
blending tanks and equipment to accommodate the increasing production are under
construction. New areas, as developed, will also benefit from infrastructure projects to process
higher volumes of produced fluids. These facility investments were scheduled by Meta and are
shown on Table 9.3. The costs were allocated to each concession and reserves category based
on the percentage of reserves to be recovered. The escalation rate applied to these costs was
two percent.
The costs to manage the rising water production are substantial and projected to increase into
the future. At the various water injection sites, clusters of horizontal injection wells are drilled
around a single vertical injection well, and pump capacity is designed based on the expected
water production in the area. If additional capacity is required due to higher than planned water
production, more pumping capacity is installed rather than the drilling of additional wells. Wells
are planned to dispose of 45,000 bwpd, but are capable of disposing of up to 70,000 bwpd.
Produced water is fresh with essentially no contaminants, and the continued disposal of 300,000
bwpd into the nearby river is expected.
Expenses - Operating Costs
The operating cost history for the past several years for the Rubiales field has been provided by
Meta. The cost schedules have been reviewed by RPS, compared with historical costs and
deemed to be reasonable.
In the year-end 2009 report, direct lifting costs were forecast to reach $3.75 per barrel of oil in
December 2009 and average $4.00 per barrel in 2010. Concurrent with oil production increases
of over 230 percent since 2008, direct lifting costs have decreased from $5.20 per barrel in 2008
R01021
34
February 2011
RPS
to $3.20 per barrel in 2010, a decrease of over 38 percent for the two-year period. Direct lifting
costs for 2011 are estimated to be $3.20 per barrel.
The monthly direct costs in 2010 from January through November steadily increased as
produced volume increased from 3.4 to 4.1 million barrels of oil per month. In November the
operating cost was $14.5 million, or $3.56 per barrel. The forecast generated by RPS for this
analysis indicates an average 2011 production volume of 210,144 barrels of oil per day. As a
result, the total operating cost forecast for 2011 is $245,448,000 which is substantially above the
costs in the prior years.
The cost noted above was split at a 35% / 65% ratio between fixed and variable cost
components, respectively. The fixed cost of $85,907,000 that is shown on Table 9.4 represents
the annual operating cost that is independent of the well count or the production volume. To
reflect the growth in field facilities, the fixed cost was increased by five percent in 2012, followed
by no increase in 2013. The variable cost of $159,541,000 represents operating costs that will
vary with well count and production volume. The variable cost was split at a 35% / 65% ratio
between well count and production volume. Variable costs of $175,000 per well (based on the
average 2011 forecasted well count) and $1.35 per barrel (based on the estimated cost allocated
to the forecasted 2011 production) were determined. All operating costs were escalated at an
annual rate of two percent.
Additional variable costs are Metas overhead and administration, field inventory and IVA. These
costs were $0.26 per barrel for the period January through November 2010. They were added
to the variable cost of $1.35 to determine the total variable cost of $1.61 per barrel of produced
oil.
Expenses Naptha Purchase
The produced crude oil has 12.5 degree API gravity, and due to its high viscosity it does not
meet pipeline specifications. Naptha at 82 degree API gravity is trucked to the field and blended
with the crude oil to lower the viscosity. The blended oil has a minimum of 18.5 degree API
gravity, meets pipeline specifications and sells for a higher price than the unblended produced
crude oil. The oil that is transported by trucks and sold locally is heated in the trucks to reduce
its viscosity and is not blended with naptha.
R01021
35
February 2011
RPS
The required naptha volume is a function of the relative crude oil quality and produced volume
from the Rubiales and Quifa fields. The crude oil from these fields is blended in the pipeline, and
the final mixture must be of pipeline quality. The forecasted production, naptha requirements
and pro-rated volume of naptha that is blended with Rubiales crude have been calculated by
RPS for this analysis. The naptha is purchased for the posted price of WTI oil less $5.00. The
forecast of naptha prices, annual volume requirement and annual expenditures to purchase the
naptha are shown on Table 9.4.
Expenses Tariffs and Blending
Until the pipeline in the field reaches its maximum capacity of 330,000 barrels per day in
September 2011 with additional pump installations, some crude oil will be trucked from the field
to the Guaduas Station where it will be blended with naptha and transferred to the pipeline for
transport to tankers at Covenas. Additional volumes will be trucked to Vasconia or Ayacucho,
from which it will move by pipeline to either Covenas or Barranquillas. Smaller volumes are
trucked to the local market and industrial sector. As pipeline capacity expands throughout 2011,
some of the trucked oil will begin moving through different segments of the pipeline system. By
September 2011 it is expected that all Rubiales crude oil will move through various segments of
the pipeline system with no trucking required. Each transportation segment has minimum quality
requirements and different tariff or freight rates. The naptha required to dilute the heavy crude is
transported by trucks to the blending points.
The naptha, crude oil and oil/naptha mix tariffs and blending costs are summarized in Table 9.4.
The unescalated cost for tariffs and blending of produced crude oil and naptha is $14.41 per
produced barrel of crude oil.
Expenses - Abandonment and Reclamation
Production forecasts indicate that the majority of the wells would produce to at least May 31,
2016. The concession contracts do not require that Meta abandon inactive wells unless the
wells have been junked for mechanical reasons.
Based on past experience, Meta has
forecasted that 2.5 percent of the wells in the field would need to be abandoned on an annual
basis at a cost of $250,000 each. The annual cost for this work has been included in the RPS
forecasts of field operating cost and is shown in Table 9.4.
R01021
36
February 2011
RPS
9.5
Evaluation Parameters
The revenue and costs were input by concession so that the appropriate working and net
revenue interest cash flows could be calculated separately. The analysis was made for both
before tax and after tax cases. A two percent escalation was applied to the investment and
operating costs based on actual Colombian data and the global RPS oilfield forecast.
A 33 percent income tax was used in the after tax analysis. A tax credit for investments was
also used in which 30 percent of the total net investment in 2010 and 2011 was deducted in
2011 and 2012 respectively. The tax credit was allocated by concession and reserves volume
by category. No tax credit was assigned to the proved producing reserves in 2011 because
those volumes that were developed in prior years did not require future investments to produce
to depletion.
The annual cash flow profit was then discounted to present worth using discount rates of 0%,
5%, 10%, 15% and 20%, and summed to calculate the cumulative discounted cash flow by
concession and reserves category. All dollars mentioned in the report are in U. S. currency.
9.6
Analysis Results
The PHDWIN economic model was used to perform the economic calculations. Tables 1.1
through 1.8 contain the summary level results.
Output from these runs is included by
concession for each reserves category in Appendix 2 (before tax cash flows) and Appendix 3
(after tax cash flows).
Note: Due to the inclusion of naptha diluent in the sales volumes, and "hardwired" program
output formats of the PHDWIN software, the summary outputs and column labels do not match
other reporting tables in this report. The following glossary should be used in interpreting the
PHDWIN cash flow output tables:
"PHDWIN Column Label = Meaning for this report
"Gross Oil" = Total field oil production (ie gross field reserves) plus Naptha diluent less oil
shrinkage
R01021
37
February 2011
RPS
"Net Oil" = Meta Working Interest share of Net Reserves = Meta share of [total oil reserves plus
Naptha diluent less oil shrinkage less Royalty]
"Oil Revenue" = Meta Working Interest Net (after royalty) revenue
Well Count = Number of PHDWIN cases included in analysis
"Net Investment" (on the before tax report) = Meta Working Interest share of Development Costs
"Net Investment" (on the after tax report) = Meta Working Interest share of Development Costs
minus Capital investment tax credits
"Net Lease Costs" (on the before tax report) and "Net Op Costs" (on the after tax report) = Meta
Working Interest share of Operating Costs (including annual abandonment costs)
"Federal Income Tax" = Meta Working Interest Federal Income tax before application of Capital
Investment tax credits
Appendix 2 contains the detailed annual revenue, cost, net and discounted cash flow figures for
the before tax evaluation cases described as follows:
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Grand Total
Proved Producing Total
Piriri Concession Proved Producing
Rubiales Concession Proved Producing
Proved Non-Producing Total
Piriri Concession Proved Non-Producing
Rubiales Concession Proved Non-Producing
Proved Undeveloped Total
Piriri Concession Proved Undeveloped
Rubiales Concession Proved Undeveloped
Probable Undeveloped Total
Piriri Concession Probable Undeveloped
Rubiales Concession Probable Undeveloped
Possible Undeveloped Total
Piriri Concession Possible Undeveloped
Rubiales Concession Possible Undeveloped
Appendix 3 contains the detailed annual revenue, cost, net and discounted cash flow figures for
the after tax evaluation cases described as follows:
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
R01021
Grand Total
Proved Producing Total
Piriri Concession Proved Producing
Rubiales Concession Proved Producing
38
February 2011
RPS
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
R01021
Proved Non-Producing Total

Piriri Concession Proved Non-Producing
Rubiales Concession Proved Non-Producing
Proved Undeveloped Total
Piriri Concession Proved Undeveloped
Rubiales Concession Proved Undeveloped
Probable Undeveloped Total
Piriri Concession Probable Undeveloped
Rubiales Concession Probable Undeveloped
Possible Undeveloped Total
Piriri Concession Possible Undeveloped
Rubiales Concession Possible Undeveloped
39
February 2011
RPS
10.0
QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
10.1
Independence and Conflict of Interest
This report has been prepared by RPS.
RPS is an independent oil and gas advisory firm
headquartered in Houston, Texas. All evaluations performed by RPS are strictly fee-based and
RPS has not and will not receive any benefit, which may be regarded as affecting its ability to
render an unbiased opinion.
10.2
Purpose, Scope and Use of This Report
This report was commissioned by Mr. Ysidro Araujo of Meta to evaluate the Rubiales Field. The
scope of the project was restricted to this brief. This report was prepared exclusively for the use
of the stated parties and should not be duplicated or distributed to any third parties without the
express written consent of RPS, except as required by law.
10.3
Available Data
This study was based on data supplied by Meta and on nonproprietary data from in-house files.
The supplied data was reviewed for reasonableness from a technical perspective.
As is
common in oil field situations, basic physical measurements taken over time cannot be verified
independently in retrospect. As such, beyond the application of normal professional judgment,
such data must be accepted as representative. While we are not aware of any falsification of
records or data pertinent to the results of this study, RPS does not warrant the accuracy of the
data and accepts no liability for any losses from actions based upon reliance on data, which is
subsequently shown to be falsified or erroneous.
10.4
Professional Qualifications
RPS personnel who prepared this report are degreed professionals with the appropriate
qualifications and experience to complete the project brief.
RPS and its staff do not claim
expertise in accounting, legal and environmental matters, and opinions on such matters do not
form part of this report.
R01021
40
February 2011
RPS
10.5
Field Visit and Inspection
No field visit to the fields or properties which are the subject of this report has been made. As is
customary in this type of evaluation, a field visit was not considered necessary. As such, RPS is
not in a position to comment on the state of operations or that such operations are in compliance
with any state or federal regulations that may apply to them.
10.6
Liability Waiver
This report has been prepared on a best efforts basis to address the requirement of the brief
specified by the clients. The results and conclusions represent informed professional judgments
based on the data available and time frame allowed to perform this work. No warranty is implied
or expressed that actual results will conform to these estimates. RPS accepts no liability for
actions or losses derived from reliance on this report or the data on which it was based.
R01021
41
February 2011

2010meta Report Rubiales-Piriri Final - Rev

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2010meta Report Rubiales-Piriri Final - Rev

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Reserves Certification Report

Meta Petroleum Corp.

2010 Reserve Certification Report

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

FIELD OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................. 5

STATIC GEOCELLULAR MODEL .................................................................................. 18

RESERVES DETERMINATION ....................................................................................... 21

PRODUCTION FORECASTING ...................................................................................... 27

2010 Reserve Certification Report

Rubiales Field Location Map

2010 Reserve Certification Report

Composite Log Well RUBIALES-316

Summary of Oil and Gas Reserves

2010 Reserve Certification Report

Field Expense Summary

Reserves Guidelines issued by the Society of Petroleum Engineers

2010 Reserve Certification Report

Given the reservoir

2010 Reserve Certification Report

Total Proved + Probable

Summary of Oil and Gas Reserves gross and net volumes

Future Net Revenue by Production Group BFIT NPV @ 10%

Summary of Pricing and Inflation Rate Assumptions

Summary of Estimated Development Costs Attributable to Reserves

Summary of Production Estimates Proved, Probable and Possible Categories

2010 Reserve Certification Report

2010 Reserve Certification Report

Field Gross 3P Reserves at end of concession are 409.1 MMbbls.

2010 Reserve Certification Report

Meta pays a 20% royalty on working interest production.

There are no other burdens or

In 2004 Meta Petroleum (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pacific Rubiales)

2010 Reserve Certification Report

2010 Reserve Certification Report

Geologic Work Process

2010 Reserve Certification Report

Table of comments on Meta Stratigraphic Analysis:

Yellow highlight denotes topics of discussion.

2010 Reserve Certification Report

Identification of Rock Type

Table of comments on Meta Porosity/Permeability analysis

Well Database, Electric Log Petrophysical Analysis Data

Yellow Highlight denotes topic of discussion.

2010 Reserve Certification Report

It is suggested that Meta consider this

The geographic distribution of lithofacies, porosity and permeability, and water

saturation values were governed by the variogram method.

2010 Reserve Certification Report

Water flows regionally to the area of lower regional

Adequate definition of a hydrodynamic trap is normally dependent on sufficient surrounding well

It is suggested that a hydrodynamic analysis be undertaken to help in predicting hydrocarbon

The mapping steps are defined in Eric Dahlbergs publication on

Hydrodynamic Oil Traps.

2010 Reserve Certification Report

In Figure 4.15B, Trend Surface

It is also dependent upon the number of data points and

2010 Reserve Certification Report

QUIFAs wells; QUIFA-005, QUIFA-006, QUIFA-007, QUIFA-008, QUIFA-009, QUIFA-010,

Petrophysical Work Process

2010 Reserve Certification Report

Petrophysical Data, Parameters and Models

DESCRIPTION (API Code)

2010 Reserve Certification Report