RE: Pulsar Helium explains its swift solution to rock dust that was impeding helium flow rate data29 Apr 2025 10:18
Smart, I think you need to temper your expectations with those numbers. For starters 'up to 14%' is not going to be anywhere near a 14% average from flow. Same goes for CO2, although I imagine the average will be nearer 70% recorded. Perhaps use some more realistic numbers. I suggest you use 750mcf and 500mcf as your base flow rates. And then go with 3% and 5% He, plus 50% / 70% CO2. Use $500 He and $20 CO2 per mcf.
For these numbers, you get a lower range of $4.5m (500mcf 3% / 50%, @$500 / $20) and upper range of $10.5m (750mcf, $500, $20, 5% / 70%). Either way, the wells are economical and easily pay for themselves in Year 1. Capex is minimal in the grand scheme of things. Key for the sp to go up is not only the economics, but also the land package increasing. If numbers are at the lower end, but they triple their land package, then we will still get a good jump.
Big question for me is what do the pressure measures mean...? Are they suggesting that original pressure reading for JS1 is a good indication of 820mcf flow rate...? And if so, that JS2 is already projected to flow at a higher rate...? I cannot work out the significance of the pressure readings provided so some help / clarification here would be appreciated.