Greenland Gas & Oil Limited (GGO) is a UK based, Greenlandic focused oil & gas exploration company with more than 4,200 kilometres of highly prospective untested onshore oil & gas concessions in the Jameson Land area of South Eastern Greenland.

The GGO technical team has advised and acted for existing operators in Greenland, Canada and the UK as well as Dutch and Norwegian operators in the North Sea and have successfully managed multiple hydrocarbon developments, including production in areas similar to the Jameson concessions.

Map source: KeyFacts Energy

Overview of Greenland operations

In 1972, based on detailed field mapping, Atlantic Richfield Company ("ARCO") ranked the Upper Palaeozoic-Mesozoic Jameson Land Basin as having the highest potential for hydrocarbon accumulations in East Greenland. For a five year period, ARCO was the operator of an approximately 10,000 km² area over the central part of the basin, ending in 1990. During this time, ARCO accumulated a wealth of data across the entire basin through a focused and diligent exploration campaign, which culminated in the identification of a multiple play system with very attractive estimated cumulative reserves for both oil and gas. ARCO's principal focus at that time was the Upper Permian shallow marine platform carbonates and reefal build-ups of the Wegener Halvø Formation, which through seismic mapping appear to provide significant trap potential. Several drillable large closures (traps) have been identified that are surrounded and draped by oil-prone shales of the Upper Permian Ravnefjeld Formation, which provides a very favourable juxtaposition of both source and seal.

It should be noted that ARCO was a true "oil finder", particularly, in more remote frontier areas, as exemplified by their exploration record and success. In 1957, ARCO was the first company to discover oil in Alaska. In 1968, ARCO, with Exxon, discovered the largest oil field in North America – the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. In the 1980's, ARCO's international arm made the first commercial natural gas discovery in offshore China.

So why did ARCO relinquish the Jameson Land asset in 1990 after almost 20 years of considerable interest and spend? We believe this could be down to several noticeable events in ARCO's history that may be relevant to the relinquishment of the block:

• The oil price collapse in 1985 and early 1986 resulted in many of the major oil companies in the United States to shift much of their exploration and development efforts to targets outside of the United States.
• By the mid-1980's, under the chairmanship of Lodwrick M. Cook, a yet more radical strategy was devised to ensure profitability and a lessening dependence on oil: to divest ARCO of all marginally profitable enterprises and to drastically cut costs across the board. As a result, between 1985 and 1987, ARCO reduced its workforce by approximately 12,000 employees.
• Net income reached a record high in 1989 of $1.95 billion; however, within two years profits were almost one-third that, at $709 million. The primary culprits were lower gas prices and an economic recession. To cut costs, ARCO eliminated 2,100 jobs in 1991.
• As ARCO's reserves declined, it pursued several strategies to maintain its revenues over the long term. One was the purchase of proven reserves from other companies. In 1988 it purchased oil and gas properties in California from Tenneco, and in 1990 purchased properties from TXO Production in Oklahoma and from Oryx in California. Three years later, ARCO joined with Phillips Petroleum to lease 130,000 acres near Alaska's Cook Inlet.

Current Operator

Despite numerous field mapping excursions, sedimentological and geochemical outcrop analyses, acquisition of seismic, gravity and magnetic data by ARCO and partners, in-depth field-based work by the Grønlands Geologiske Undersøgelse ("Greenland Geological Survey" or "GGU") and subsequently by the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland ("GEUS"), the Jameson Land Basin can still be regarded as largely underexplored in terms of thoroughly evaluating its exploration potential from a multitude of attractive plays identified by these studies; with no exploration wells drilled to date. As demonstrated by these studies, including more recent work published by GEUS and several academic institutions, the basin appears to contain all the key essential play elements – source, reservoir, seal, and trap – for the significant generation and accumulation of commercially viable hydrocarbons. The culmination of this work, together with the findings of an in-depth study by Greenland Gas and Oil (GGO), has resulted in the identification of several major source and reservoir intervals, and a number of potential drillable targets throughout the 17 km total stratigraphic thickness of the basin.

Source Potential

ARCO Research devoted considerable time and effort to type-sourcing the bitumen and asphalt shows from across the basin, including cores, to analysed potential source rock outcrop samples. Isotope and biomarker data for these shows in all cases can be genetically linked to the Upper Jurassic Hareelv Formation.

Source Rock Maturation and Charge

Estimated depths of burial of the Upper Permian Ravnefjeld Formation would favour the generation of oil and/or gas prior to the significant Tertiary uplift and erosion observed across the basin. Due to the subsidence and uplift history of the basin, ARCO regarded the thermal maturity of the basin's major source rock intervals as a significant geological risk, even for the Permian. Although ARCO recognised that the Jurassic source samples analysed are very high in organic carbon content and also high in soluble organic matter content, several of their reports concluded that these source rocks were too shallow in terms of depth of burial to generate reasonable quantities of oil and/or gas. With more recent understanding of the magnitude of tectonic uplift and erosion from maturity and apatite fission track data, it is becoming clear that the basin experienced significant uplift and erosion in the order of ~ 1 km and 2-3 km, respectively. With increasing tectonic uplift to the north of the basin, this episode of uplift and denudation resulted in destruction of hydrocarbon accumulations on the flanks/highs of the basin. This relatively late stage – Tertiary – event now supports the concept that the potentially prolific oil-prone source rocks found within the Lower and Upper Jurassic successions, and possibly within the Triassic, in the central part of the basin, were originally at a depth of burial for the generation of substantial quantities of hydrocarbons.

Basin modeling results by Mathiesen et al. (1995) demonstrate that the Upper Permian and older successions are post mature in most of the Jameson Land Basin, with the exception of a narrow zone close to the northwestern margin of the basin. Due to greater subsidence in the central part of the basin, hydrocarbon generation had already reached the main oil stage during the Cretaceous. The hydrocarbons generated were either thermally degraded or may have migrated into shallow stratigraphic traps in the overlying sedimentary section during the early Tertiary. This may explain remnant oil in the Upper Permian carbonates, with subsequent flushing by hyper saline fluids displacing/destroying hydrocarbons on the flanks of basin, resulting in the oil possibly being preserved downdip. In contrast, Mathiesen et al. (1995) show that the Lower Jurassic Kap Stewart Formation has hydrocarbon and preservation potential in an extensive area in southern and central Jameson Land. The source rock was immature throughout the area at the end of the Cretaceous, and reached main oil generation during the early Tertiary. In the deeper parts of the basin, the Upper Jurassic Hareelv Formation may have also reached the oil window. This needs to be tested further with more in-depth basin modeling for all potential source intervals, and for different heat flow and uplift scenarios.

Reservoirs

The Central and Southern Areas of the basin appear to provide the best preserved total sedimentary section from the Devonian to the Lower Cretaceous providing multiple play intervals.

The key reservoir intervals being:

• The Upper Permian shallow marine carbonate platform and reefal build-ups of the Wegener Halvø Formation;
• The fan delta and alluvial fan sands of the Basal Triassic Sandstone' of the Early Triassic Wordie Creek; Aeolian and alluvial-fluvial sandstones of the Late Triassic Gipsdalen and Fleming Fjord Formations.
• Lacustrine and fluvial-deltaic-marginal marine sandstones of the Rhaetian–Sinemurian Kap Stewart Group; 
• Marine sandstones of the Pliensbachian–Aalenian Neill Klinter Group; Shallow marine-deltaic sandstones     of the Upper Bajocian – Callovian Pelion Member of the Vardekloft Formation and the Upper Callovian-Middle Oxfordian Olympen Formation;
• The deep water turbidite sands of the Upper Oxfordian – Kimmeridgian Hareelv Formation

Plays

The Jameson Land Basin is a multiple play system, with all of these individual plays spatially and temporally associated with good to excellent organic-rich shales that can act as major oil-prone source rocks, with the shales themselves draping the Permian carbonates or completely enclosing the Mesozoic sandstone reservoir as very effective seals. This provides the best juxtaposition of source, reservoir and seal, and significantly reduces risk and uncertainty in terms of migration pathways and timing, with all the plays cited above essentially "self-charging". Of these plays, GGO regard the primary exploration targets in the Jameson Land Basin to be: (1) the Middle Jurassic sandstones of the Pelion Member of the Vardekloft Formation and the Olympen Formation; and (2) Lower Jurassic sandstones of the Kap Stewart and possibly Neill Klinter Formations. Also of interest are the deep water turbidite sands of the Upper Jurassic Hareelv Formation; however, from seismic mapping and outcrop patterns, it is clear that this play interval is restricted to the southernmost part of the basin, where there is a lack of seismic data. The Late Triassic may also provide a viable attractive clastic play, with aeolian and alluvial-fluvial sandstones provided by the Gipsdalen and Fleming Fjord Formations, sourced by the organically-rich black to dark grey lacustrine mudstones of the Gråklint Beds.

Licence Award

In March 2019, GGO confirmed the award of a new licence and extension of existing licences on its Jameson Land acreage located onshore south-east Greenland.

The Government of Greenland awarded GGO a 93.75% operating interest (Nuna Oil A/S holding 6.25%) in a new licence 2018/40 to the north of GGO’s existing licences through its open-door licence process. The
Government also approved an extension of sub-period 1 of the existing licences, 2015/13 and 2015/14, through to 31 December 2020. Fiscal terms of all three licences are unchanged from the initial licence terms, whilst ongoing financial obligations have been rationalised across all three licences.

In-house geological and geophysical work confirms substantial potential for hydrocarbon discoveries across eight different formations and play concepts, with total unrisked recoverable resource estimates remaining in the range of 300 million barrels (P90) to 28 billion barrels (P10) with a P50 estimate of 3.3 billion barrels.

The drilling programme is provisionally expected to cover two winter seasons, commencing winter 2020/21 with a minimum of two wells per season. GGO is currently assessing the need for further infill seismic in some areas of the licence. 

Leadership

• Roderick McIllree Chairman
• Mark Bilsland Chief Executive Officer
• Eric Sondergaard Chief Operating Officer
• Michael Hutchinson Non-Executive Director
• Greg Kuenzel Non-Executive Director
• Sam Moody Non-Executive Director
• Bo Møller Stensgaard Non-Executive Director
• Garth Palmer Chief Financial Officer
• Scott McKelvie EHS Manager
• John Jacques Geological Advisor and Acting Exploration Manager

Contact

Greenland Gas and Oil Limited
7-9 Swallow Street
London W1B 4DE
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)207 907 9325
www.ggoplc.com

This profile also features in the September PESGB magazine.

KeyFacts Energy: GGO Greenland country profile

KeyFacts Energy hold a global database comprising over 600 Oil & Gas company profiles. For more details, contact us.