Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
MMO
You are being even more foolish now, and to be fair to Geodes, Tep set him up, by not including the hyper links I included to 88es study, that came up with the well numbers for the different SMD zones
Here is the entire post, reposted for MMO, who I see it was posted to in the first place
MMO
In the interest of the genuine investors here, I did a little digging on the SMDB being flow tested currently
From the facts, all to be found in
https://clients3.weblink.com.au/pdf/88E/02655754.pdf
Shelf Margin Delta (SMD A, B & C) best estimate 140 m barrels net to 88e
(Based on a reinterpretation of a 2d data set, no changes made post acquisition of 3D data)
https://clients3.weblink.com.au/pdf/88E/02612833.pdf
SMD phased development study completed
SMDA 126 producing wells
SMDB 80 producing wells
SMDC 70 producing wells
All up 276 wells for the A +B +C, which makes the 80 in SMDB 29% of the total
So how big is the SMDB estimate, 29% of the 140 total estimated by 88e, round that up to 41m barrels
Should 88e have complete success they will prove up 41 m barrels
Not such a surprise when the net pay is considered
Gross pay in the entire SMDs A + B+ C is healthy ~540 ft
Net pay (the bit the produces oil) is only ~95ft
29% of 95 ft is ~ 28 ft of net pay in the SMDB reservoir
88e will aim to fracture stimulate into as much of this 28ft of pay distributed over the SMDs assumed (540 x 29%) gross pay of 157 ft. Quite achievable as fracture heights routinely propagate over 200 ft from the perforation cluster pack point of origin. (20ft in the USFS case)
MMO
No No MMO,
The estimates red herring you threw out always was the subject, your post
"All you do is make assumptions and claim them to be facts, using 88's RNS estimates, yes, estimates to claim as your proof. You're not fooling anyone here mate."
Rather foolish, when estimates are used for the very class of resources in question, including the 250 m you just used
MMO
Your ability to misinterpret is legend, no surprises there
Back to the estimates you so easily dismissed before you dodged away on a tangent
The 250 m you so happily quoted was also an estimate, but a pity you did not use the correct number of 28 m barrels of oil and 57 m barrels of NGLs net to 88e
MMO
If you think that is a dismissal you are more of a fool than I thought, Geodes is questioning some of the assumptions, in generalizing the data on oil saturation etc across the A ,B and C reservoirs. (No choice but to do so as 88e have not given the individual data)
But makes no comment on the central component, which is taken from the 88e reservoir development plan
MMO
Obviously you are unaware that the basin figure is an estimate also
MMO
Here is your nonsense
"We have 250M alone in the basin"
88e are clear on this and have already announced their share or the basin is 85m barrels of combined oil and NGLs
Do you not know this or are you being dishonest
MMO
Can you point out the nonsense to the wider audience
Taxi
To complete the logic in your assessment, factor in what PANR are doing to get the market to recognize that $5 to $10 per barrel
They are taking the discovered, vertically flow tested, horizontal multi stage flow tested, up dip, superior reservoir to production, because right now the stock market is valuing their IER booked contingent barrels at 26p with another 1 billion of lesser proven barrels thrown in for free
Taxi yes, perfectly fair to sum all of the reservoirs that are economic,
These two flow tests, are to begin to prove up a flow rate and fluids composition, that makes further flow testing investment justifiable
The fact that the BFF has not been flow tested is a red flag on its commercial potential. I have no worries about NSAI's estimates of 85m of salable liquids to 88e in volume, but only a flow test will prove its commercial extraction value
The upper SFS, looks a poor fluid composition, and there is no guidance to recoverable volume
As to the remaining targets, SMDA and C and the Lower SFS, without a flow test in this location, they are unknowns
Note PANR have flow tested the SFS, but claim no contingent barrels from it at all. SMD A + C have not been flow tested, as they are lesser reservoirs on PANR leases, so again not claimed as contingent presently
Taxi
It is calculated from the development plan 88e put out for the SMDs
Shelf Margin Delta (SMD A, B & C) best estimate 140 m barrels net to 88e
(Based on a reinterpretation of a 2d data set, no changes made post acquisition of 3D data)
https://clients3.weblink.com.au/pdf/88E/02612833.pdf
SMD phased development study completed
SMDA 126 producing wells
SMDB 80 producing wells
SMDC 70 producing wells
All up 276 wells for the A +B +C, which makes the 80 in SMDB 29% of the total
Chrisev1
Then I invite you to unwind them
At least you are agreeing the facts are real, better than some of the head in the sand pumpers
Taxi
Using your analogy, what happens if you spend the money and your house remains the same size.
In effect that has been the outcome at Longhorn, they keep spending, get a short term boost, they drift back again
Its the nature of a depleted stripper well operation, they continually spend to restore production.
Some of the wells are only doing 1 barrel/day
In the future when it stops being viable, there is then an abandonment cost for 88e to finance somehow
Chrisev1
1 fact, can you count
Facts
Flow off oil 24.8bbls
Flow of gas 1.45mmcf
Flow back duration 111 hrs
Estimated volume 140 m bbls recovrerable
29% of 140 m is 41m
Need I go on
Chrisev1
The flow rates are undeniable facts, taken directly from an 88e RNS
This is the reddit poster, that produced the last flare picture
Last pic 3 days ago, with no flare, so maybe soon,
https://www.reddit.com/user/jam1533/
Taxi
Go to the accounts, note how the asset value of Longhorn has gone up, as cash is injected to try to improve flow rates
Creative stuff, moving expense/spend into asset value
You will see they are spending more than they are earning
Its a pattern now, anyone that posts a thorough analysis, with referenced facts, or a logic backed opinion, is subject to an abusive put down of their character.
Note, not of their arguments, as the posters are unable to dispute the facts, or logic
It is the exact pattern through all of the other pump and dump cycles, food for though in the thinking mind
Back to the current facts
24.8 barrels of oil flowed over 111 hrs of flowback in the USFS reservoir, with 1.45mmcf of accompanying gas, be generous and say an average of 42 bopd for a total of 14hrs. That is a very short oil flow test, PANR did 5 days of oil flow in their test, at an average of 45 bopd, with the handbrake hard on, to minimize flashing in the reservoir.
The volume of gas 88e produced, suggests the handbrake was off, and the gas pedal was fully down
A GOR of 58000 scf to 1 barrel of oil, research that for an idea of how poor it is
Even allowing for over producing, to gain a high headline grabbing oil flow in the test, halve that to 29000 scf/bbl, see what your research concludes
Now awaiting the flow rate on the SMDB, with an 88e, info derived estimated 29% of the pre estimated recoverable 140mm bbls. That 41 mmbbls is the success case in SMDB
Reasonable to expect a flow rate, sure, the question will be is it economic
To prove that will require another drill, horizontal multi stage frack and long term flow test. Plan for a cost of $25 to $30m for this
Farm out or sell, possible, but don't expect good terms. PANR with a massive resource, in a much more favorable updip geology, with a long term flow test showing a 10000 ft production well with the appropriate frack, in their worst geology would yield an IP30 of 1500bpd. Opted to go into production to bypass the need to deal with the circling sharks
In the copied transcribed section of the latest webinar below, there is a very important detail that may have slipped under the radar
Lee Keeling have been engaged to produce an IER on the Alkaid zone, this will include the new data from the deeper reservoir and the long term flow testing results, and this is report is IMMINENT.
All good, more reservoir so expect more oil, but the key new detail is this report is to INCLUDE, AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS.
This is the very first Independent expert opinion on the rewards, the current commercial value of the Alkaid reservoir itself, should this come out positive, (I cannot see PANR asking for the report if they calculate it will be negative) PANR are then regulatory approvals, and commitment to producing, away from declaring RESERVES
1:10 D Hobbs
First we're going to tell you about the first of two independent expert reports, covering the two Horizons within the Ahpun field, that have so far been flow tested successfully, are going to, one be delivered imminently, one from Lee Keeling and Associates on the Alkaid zone and the second from Cawley Gillespie on the top sets, the Western top sets in the Ahpun field again expected shortly.
But we know that the Lee Keeling one is imminent. These estimates will not be contingent on economics, because we've asked them to include an economic analysis in their work. We will address the contingency on marketability, in so far as we have a legitimate part to gain access to the trans Alaska pipeline system, and in due course, the in state phase of the Alaska LNG project pipeline to Nikiski, should that project proceed. Alternatively we've investigated the injectability of the gas back into the top set reservoirs for storage, and found that that is feasible.
Rpj8438
Would you agree DD involves accurately assessing the potential rewards, and the chances of achieving them. So giving a risk weighted objective means to make investment decisions
In the process of DD considering and seeking out those risk reward factors, such as recoverable oil volume and economic flow rate
Here it is gam2, for your convenience
MMO
In the interest of the genuine investors here, I did a little digging on the SMDB being flow tested currently
From the facts, all to be found in
https://clients3.weblink.com.au/pdf/88E/02655754.pdf
Shelf Margin Delta (SMD A, B & C) best estimate 140 m barrels net to 88e
(Based on a reinterpretation of a 2d data set, no changes made post acquisition of 3D data)
https://clients3.weblink.com.au/pdf/88E/02612833.pdf
SMD phased development study completed
SMDA 126 producing wells
SMDB 80 producing wells
SMDC 70 producing wells
All up 276 wells for the A +B +C, which makes the 80 in SMDB 29% of the total
So how big is the SMDB estimate, 29% of the 140 total estimated by 88e, round that up to 41m barrels
Should 88e have complete success they will prove up 41 m barrels
Not such a surprise when the net pay is considered
Gross pay in the entire SMDs A + B+ C is healthy ~540 ft
Net pay (the bit the produces oil) is only ~95ft
29% of 95 ft is ~ 28 ft of net pay in the SMDB reservoir
88e will aim to fracture stimulate into as much of this 28ft of pay distributed over the SMDs assumed (540 x 29%) gross pay of 157 ft. Quite achievable as fracture heights routinely propagate over 200 ft from the perforated interval (the 20ft perforated interval USFS case)