Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
And Rabito, you of course were right regarding Brookian plays extending over.
Rabito, I totally agree, posting only positive can give the wrong impression, however when there are so many non holders on here posting negative, non factual as who knows, I do not see anything wrong with levelling the playing field.
I would rather only deal with facts from releases by 88E, and when you see previous posts you will know that, but I have went of script a few times and was corrected by Older or belittled by Scot. I dont mind being informed with facts that I can check but most of deramper stuff is guesswork, assumptions, estimations, personal thoughts, non of which are factual regardless of ending the sentence with 'fact'.
If the rampers and derampers would just disappear I'm sure the majority on here would be thankful.
One final point, as a LTH I don't want to be told what is wrong with my holdings, I just want to chat with like minded holders who all hope one day to actually make money. No lectures required.
Taximan, generally if you only publish the positives things will read positive. Note no mention of permeability. Pantheon's SMD is 100x more permeable that that at Alkaid and I believe their new leases are predicted to be 10-100 times better again.
In my opinion if the flow tests are positive, likely only confirmed by further third party modelling/verification, 88e have shot themselves in the foot by being selective in the way they have reported results. Certainly been an interesting week for the spectators.
From 2 years ago, thanks Rabito;
'88 Energy advises that it is in ongoing discussions in relation to a potential farm-out of the Project Icewine acreage. Due diligence activities and negotiations are advancing with regard to the potential farm-in by a third party and the related work program terms and structure'
And prior to Icewine being renamed;
'Subsequent and independent comparisons of the zone that was tested and flowed light oil in Alkaid-1 at “80-100 BOPD light oil” (see Pantheon release of 25 March 2019) against the Icewine-1 well, have revealed the porosity and
resistivity of a similar 110 ft net section in Icewine-1 well to be higher. Higher porosity is indicative of better reservoir quality and higher resistivity is an indicator that greater amounts of hydrocarbons are present. Given the favourable petrophysical comparison between Icewine-1 and Alkaid-1, the Company is optimistic that a production test in the Eastern Icewine acreage could yield a similar or better result than seen during the testing of Alkaid-1'.
It all reads excellent for 88E on the strength of good results from PANR, and the company expects more oil in their section of the reservoirs than PANRs. Lets hope so when they get their independent report later this year.
Marbs, I think you are wrong. I believe all the reservoirs on Icewine are Brookian plays (see link). I also think you are confusing frac propagation (200ft) with height of interval perforated (20ft). It would be good to understand how well the fracs performed, this has been a learning curve for PANR shareholders.
I note 88e plan to request the contingent resource classification, it will be interesting if they look to get 3rd party type curve modelling and a commercial assessment in the updated IER.
Given the above I still think the comments regards natural flow are misleading.
Taximan, I would have though the lack of gas at SMD-B would be the primary driver to nitrogen lift being required. Not sure where your confidence in this respect comes from.
https://clients3.weblink.com.au/pdf/88E/02508470.pdf
My apologies marlbs, for my simplistic replies to you,I thought you were a newbie. I looked back on your posts and realised that you are a hardened poster. I look forward to reading more ;)
Marlbs, very good point and well spotted. The derampers will try anything to get you to sell 88E and move over to PANR. The opposite is LTHs of 88E, we don't care about PANR. It is true that we share reservoirs and that any good news from either company should be a positive for the other but some on here have blinkers on. For example I wasn't aware that SMD B flowed naturally for a period when tested by PANR so technically it could also have flowed naturally for 88E but imo I think 88E were fully aware that the upper test ran well over time so did not want that to happen with SMD B so used nitrogen lift from the start. That PANR news is a positive for 88E. Because I don't frequent their board I am not as aware as the derampers who cover both boards. That is also the reason I don't bin anyone, unlike many over here who are constantly being harrassed by PANR holders so bin them. I try to glean some knowledge which is why I mentioned Olderwiser earlier who has been very helpful in the past.
Rabito, I wasn't aware of PANR testing other than what was said in 88Ereleases as I have no holding in PANR. If what you are saying is true I see that as a positive for 88E. I am sure that nitrogen lift was used purely due to time restraints as they started SMD B late. Thank you for the update.
Interesting point Rabito, however Alkaid 1 was targeting the Brookian Formation and I don't believe that is comparable when relating to shared resource of a neighbouring acreage, do correct me if I'm wrong, I believe 88e are referring to the Alkaid 2 well as this is linked to the 88e acreage targeting the same formations, so when they talk about there being a difference
from the PANR RNS for Alkaid 2:
"(i) Post well analysis indicates that the frac treatment resulted in vertical propagation across the entirety of the the 200 ft gross (100 ft net) reservoir column and extended laterally some 300-400 ft."
- this generated only 45bopd average, 88e achieved nearly that over a 20ft vertical flowing naturally, in shared resource, so this is probably a better/relevant comparison, would you agree? All interesting stuff.
Marlbs, the SMDB test was a vertical test in the Alkaid 2 well. Only thing I have uncovered is misleading statements IMHO.
Your response prompted me to check the Alkaid 1 vertical test as well, guess what:
'The Brookian ZOI has an estimated gross 400 feet and net 240 feet of pay. A six foot interval was perforated and stimulated and the well flowed naturally until 30% of the frac fluid was recovered, when a nitrogen gas lift system was initiated. Light oil (40 degree API) was recovered and c.40% of the frac fluid was returned within the first 14 hours. The well was shut in for 72 hours due to equipment problems and severe weather conditions (stage 3 Blizzard). The well was then turned back on and the oil cut increased steadily to +40%, producing about 80-100BOPD with occasional slugs of oil producing at much higher rate.'
Note Pantheon has occasional slugs much higher but didn't report these as peak flow rates. They also only perforated 6ft opposed to 20ft. However I don't think it's wise to compare well tests as they are seldom like for like. For instance there has been considerable learnings from Alkaid 2, which Pantheon have advised 88e on.
Olderwiser,
I’m gobsmacked you are still bleating about 4 barrels.
“…Proving just one reservoir viable would have been an outstanding success…”
I agree. And they just proved 2 of them
Rabito, this is a lateral production test though flowing in to a production facility, correct? 88e is a small vertical well flowing naturally. Did the PANR vertical test well flow naturally, if not then I would agree that there is a significant difference ? Added to that, assuming PANR didn't flow naturally and then flowed 500bopd on the lateral then imagine what 88e will flow on a lateral, maybe you have just uncovered why the vertical natural flow is such a positive for 88e?
Taximan, please note the SMD-B flowed under natural flow:
'Expectations for flow rates, water saturations and water cuts had led to plans for nitrogen lift (necessary to reduce bottom hole pressure and ensure that fluids were recovered to surface). Encouragingly, nitrogen injection was not required until the last six days of the eleven day test, resulting in the operation coming in at or below budgeted timelines and costs.'
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/PANR/validation-of-frac-design-and-fluid-sampling-tcrx4qvdikio0t4.html
The Alkaid 2 well also achieved natural flow. Note 88e have referenced Alkaid 2 as being a SFS play previously, although I am not sure Pantheon agree:
'Encouragingly, despite the blockage, the well is flowing naturally into Pantheon's recently commissioned permanent production facilities located on the Dalton Highway at a rate of over 500 barrels per day ("bpd") of hydrocarbon liquids which includes oil, condensate and natural gas liquids ("NGL's"), as well as significant natural gas, from an estimated 4,000 ft of lateral.'
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/PANR/operational-update-qdows7bk03aci0x.html
The language used by 88e is misleading at best as evidenced above.
99e, oh dear :-), I mean 88e !!
Thanks taximan, appreciate your responses, the fact that 99e have highlighted in bold and followed that with the word positively in their most important RNS of this year the specific wording of which was approved by the board leaves me in no doubt this is a positive for 88e, that is how it was intended, you wouldn't highlight it otherwise. I also notice they didn't test the LSFS as PANR had already proven this, so with all 3 plays the potential bopd would be even greater had they include the the LSFS in the flow test, is that correct? And more potential upside on the BFF?
What older fails to tell is the GOR on SMD B was minimum to none. Also injecting gas for raising oil is expensive, a cost that will be far less for 88E than PANR as 88E have natural flow in the upper whilst PANR injected all wells during testing. Did I mention the derampers grabbing the 4 barrels for dear life? It is hard to grasp reality when you have an agenda. Nothing they hear is ever positive, there is always spin. You have to decide whether you believe the company who say these are excellent figures or the derampers who say they are poor. Also the fact that they are on this board without holding any shares shouts loudest for me.
Marlbs, Older is knowledgeable and often helpful and says he is on this board to level the playing field with the rampers. He is the level head amongst extremists. You have to decide if he is for or against 88E. He is also on the PANR board.
Marlbs
Positively differentiating is IMO pure spin, read it differently, positively as in certainly differentiating
As the exceptionally high gas rates is a negative, and that is what drives the natural flow. Apart from the production costs it generates, a high gas rate means there is less oil in the rock pores, as gas occupies space at these levels, unlikely to be all associated gas that exsolves from oil at High GORs
MunnieTorxm er, thanks for your, um, 'intelligent' input, i guess, well done!
Olderwiser, appreciate your input here, the reason I raised this is the 88e RNS states " Quality and deliverability of both SMD-B and USFS demonstrated via oil production to surface with the USFS reservoir producing under natural flow - positively differentiating Hickory-1 from results on adjacent acreage." with under natural flow highlighted in bold text, so they are clearly indicating this is a positive, why would you think that would be if you are correct and it would be more expensive, they clearly have a different opinion so I'm just trying to understand the advantage they have here.
When a company has to put out three rns and one of them being a follow up rns to try and explain-O-pump away the previous one and even that doesn't move the needle you know its game over.
It was already clearly game over on the first reading. Its still game over now in my opinion. Nothing has changed. 4 barrels of oil is still 4 barrels of oil, even if its a calculated flow. If the test was good at early cut they would simply have carried on but even late into the cut there was really nothing except a few slugs, a very low % cut of oil. That much is clear. Never seen any flow test reported in such a way. The market saw right through it. Price is all time lows. Ask yoursepf why... exactly.
What would be very vexing is if yet more people who just wish to make some gains decide to invest in this company based on the ramblings of a few posters who appear intent on misleading with their stance that the flow rates here have been anything less than disastrous and disappointing, at best.
The inevitable placing (not Farm out) will be the icing on the cake and even then the promotes here will be saying its a good thing there are 50... 60... 70 billion shares in circulation.
Wait until May, June, July... Money is needed and it is overwhelmingly likely to come from equity dilution. Anyone thinking this will be farmed into really doesnt understand the industry.
My opinion. Discuss and offer a counter argument.
Marlbs
No it is the same if not more, the fractures are still needed at the same scale, but the very high gas rates that give the natural lift are a problem. This gas must be reinjected, PANR have budgeted 1 reinjection well for every 3 producers, based on the Alkaid 2 ZOI reservoir
FYI where natural flow occurred for more than 2 months, not the few days of the USFS.
The measured GOR there was in the range of 12k to 14k/barrel, much lower than the USFSwhere on the available numbers it showed 58k/barrel. on its very short flow period, so take that number with caution. Eventually 88e will have to fessup on that post PVT analysis
If it finishes up at 1 to 1 GOR of 36k/barrel, that adds $15m to every production well
My question was more around the complexity and cost of going in to production with a natural flow, let's just assume the USFS is the main focus which had a similar average flow rate to PANR but with 88e it flowed naturally, does this mean it will be less complex, requires less material to go down the well to get the oil out, and therefor is cheaper, with less equipment and quicker to get to production? Seems to me like this would be the case.
Taxi
Oil flow is typically expected before 30% clean up, and well settled by 60%, these test were at 70%.
They were not going to get much better
I am gob smacked the 4 barrels of actual collected oil in the tank over 16 hours, is still being spun as a stable 50 bopd
It could not be more simple, in 16 hours they produced 4 barrels of oil, that is never going to be worth developing
I do not for a moment believe time pressure was the reason the test stopped, if the result was good in the USFS, they would have persisted, even if it meant coming back next year to flow test the SMDB.
Proving just one reservoir viable would have been an outstanding success
As for testing each one individually, so did 88E.
Older, we will always differ on the interpretation of flow rate, I cannot agree that it was 4 or 6 bopd and the 50 wasn't based on flow over 16hrs as the majority of the time was spent on cleaning up, it says that in the release. I am happy to take peak rate as over a longer period it was going to improve, again mentioned in the release. Also there are some on here that will not accept any bopd figure as they are calculated. To get a real bopd it would have had to wait on the cleaning to end then run for a full 24hrs. You are well aware that they ran out of time/ ran over time and had to stop to allow the services and rig to leave. If they had continued until after the cleaning then i'm sure the flow rate would have been closer to the peak than the barrels in storage tank. We did not have a day's production so had to be calculated. I'm happy with 50 as the company were happy with the results and that would not have been the case if it was just 4.
Taxi
PANR tested each reservoir individually, its the only way to do a reservoir flow test