Member Info for Olderwiser

Goldwater

A bit of math error there 110 x 10 = 1100

Beyond that, how is it possible to flow at 50 bopd, and only have 4 barrels in the tank, after 16 hours

Or 70 bopd and only 24.8 barrels in the tank

Gman

Do a little research on N2 lifting, it is a form of artificial lift

With N2 lifting, it only flowed 4 barrels in 16 hours, an average of one barrel every 4 hours, (one quarter of a barrel an hour)

OilBcNu

PANR have not said that ever, I challenge you to prove that

They have consistently and sensitively, emphasized how being up dip with a better DMAX is good

Neversatisfied, at 70% of the frack fluid recovery there will not be much more oil flow increase, after 60% it only incremental

Here we are again with an RNS that gives the impression of a win, but the fact is, they only flowed 4 barrels of oil into the stock tank over the 16 hours post oil recovery commencing

Gman

Sorry you cannot do it that way, they only produced 4 barrels of oil in the entire backflow, the 50 is an instantaneous peak rate, given in bopd, not a sustained rate over 24 hours. If that was the case there would be 50 barrels in the stk tank

Anyone that has kept their eyes open, now knows where to look for the facts, 4 barrels of oil total flow to the stock tank.

Good that the GOR is low though

Appendix A

Item J

The well produced at an average oil cut of 4% following initial oil to surface, with instantaneous rates observed during the 16 hour period varying as the well continued to clean up at managed fluid flow rate of ~170 bbls/d with a calculated total volume during the flow back period following establishment of oil cut of ~4 stk bbls.

No measurable gas or NGL’s were recovered from the SMD-B test.

Gemstar

I see you have produced your evidence for the 10% "worrying" PANR short, without realizing it is a running total, the number at the top is the percentage that is currently held short by Mangrove

It is a pity it is only 1.53%, not the 10% you got by adding all of the running totals together, as the short squeeze would then be simply astronomical, as the stock price continues to rise

Adnauseam 14:44

Thanks for the efforts, but it is of no use in this case, as the Hickory well has been fracture stimulated, perforation is just one of the steps in stimulation. The link is for a situation where only perforation has been used, such as a high porosity conventional well.

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