Member Info for Olderwiser

GOR is the amount of gas that comes out of, the amount of oil needed to produce a barrel of oil, as it moves from reservoir pressure to separator pressure.
To answer your question it is both, as more oil is produced more gas will also be produced, and if the GOR is higher more gas will be produced per barrel of oil.
Using GOR of 650, it means you will flow oil until you have 1 barrel of oil in the tank, at that point you will also have produced 650 standard cubic feet of gas.
Different reservoirs have different GOR, Alkaid is a single reservoir so Alkaid 1 samples and flow test results can be expected to be a good guide

To add a little to the flare pictures,
Having monitored, and previously given a calibrated eye opinions on the flare pictures, from the first batch on the 5th December. There will be skeptics on the ability to do this, but take it for what it is. Any eye that has seen plenty of live flares and had the real time flow rate displayed on a screen as well. A ballpark estimate more accurate at the lower end than this higher rate.

The last batch have picked up a bit from the previous batch, confident to now place the flare flow in the 1500 to 2000+ mcf/d range
Quite an achievement for a well planned to flare 500 mcf/d. As per my previous post at a GOR of 650 ft/barrel and 1500 mcf/d it is potentially 2307 bpd of oil. GOR is not a proven, at this point in this well, but even extending GOR out to a very unlikely 1000, it still shows an oil flow of 1500 bpd.

hTTps://twitter.com/geodesrock49/status/1605773257625309184?s=46&t=4QfBmVmKRnPxCkxvvtubtA

Good research, but in this case less applicable.
PANR completed it stimulation using a slick water fracture, rather than a cross linked gel. This is paper focused on problems more associated with the later.
https://www.spe.org/media/filer_public/c9/0b/c90bd482-9477-4857-8b9b-1004e92beb7b/spe-108807-dl.pdf

Time resets to the beginning of flowback post proppant cleanout, it has not been made clear by PANR
It is 100% safe to go back to the emergence of the Oilz flare pictures on the 5th December, as no flare exists without flowback. Beyond that there are satellite pictures indicating flaring on site, from memory somewhere around the 28th November .
Even further back it becomes word of mouth, Oilz reports

oilz12/13/2022 7:03 AM
From what I understand, and this is just word of mouth, we are now pushing 4 weeks of this massive flare (edited)

Which gets the flowback initiation to the middle of November, all considered it is likely there has already been 3 weeks of flowback and flaring, so currently we are right in the zone.

If I have looped this correctly watch the next 1.5 minutes for a good explanation by M Duncan on flowback and timeline,
I am hearing 2 to 3 weeks

https://youtu.be/1sUjszlKUL0?list=PLnk_WM-WosgU30PQKhcscHGRiJJ655uNi&t=194

Villa01
There is a micro gas turbine providing site power, this should be now running free of charge on our own solution gas, with a backup supply available from the CNG trailer tubepack if required.

Treat this as more fun than fact please, but gives an idea on frack water tankers to count.
PANR have stated “Typically, a better indication of ultimate production performance can be ascertained after recovering over 40% of the frac fluid”
Typically, so not fixed in stone, oil flow rate is the ultimate test.
I had a crack at estimating the volume of injected frack water a while back, and came up with a minimum of 50,000 barrels. It was subject to a few assumptions, such as only using the available stored water on site.
With new facts emerging, 12” make up water supply hose, and 10,000,000 lbs of proppant delivered, that assumption has to change, and also include make up water supply during the fracturing of stages.
Calculating from a different perspective, proppant is blended into slick water at a range from 0.25 to 4lbs/gallon, with the norm around 1.2lbs/gallon.
Based on that the 10m lbs infers 8.3m gallons
That is 198413 barrels injected, the recovery target at 40% is 79365 barrels
Prior to shut down for proppant clean out (12.5%) 24802 barrels had been recovered, leaving another 54563 to come after restart.
At 190 barrels/tanker load, it requires 287 trips
More assumptions (errors ??) an average 1900 frack water barrels are recovered/day, 10 tanker loads daily to dispose of off site, 29 days to achieve the 40%
We have strong flare flow pictures from the 5th December, indicating good reservoir contact, so look to be well ahead on this,
Obviously so many what ifs , did all the proppant get used, perhaps only 90%, what if proppant ratio is 2lbs/gallon etc

You are welcome, here are the pre and post proppant cleanout flare pictures, the perspectives are different, but still clear the flare has grown substantially
Page 7
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bpKDSC_BXp06it2-hRTnCEW4aM9YedDO/view
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/827703740143763466/1049522238984048720/3F873DC9-33BB-4992-B5BC-816E89A985DD.jpg

Peakybrum
Flow needs to be stable before it can be reported, at this stage it may still be rising, so does not meet the stability bar
looking at the flare in the extended flare hearing slide pack, taken prior to shutdown for proppant cleanout, it was much smaller then. This was the period over which the 10% oil cut was reported
Much larger flares have been captured in the period after completion of the proppant cleanout.
Two possibilities, there is greater flow of both fluids, oil and water, as the proppant blockage is resolved, or the ratio of oil in the fluids is rising. A bit of both is probable , but more of the later as the reservoir makes contact and starts to displace the declining water flow.
Most of the water is frack water, so the quantity is limited to that placed in the stimulation,

Oops , should have divided, not multiplied, corrected version below
Although not all will necessarily have been used, it also implies at 1.2 lb/gallon (I don't know the actual but this should be close) As much as 8.4 million gallons is possible (198,000 barrels)
Oops below
Although not all will necessarily have been used, it also implies at 1.2 lb/gallon (I don't know the actual but this should be close) As much as 12 million gallons is possible (286,000 barrels)

Alex, there are many errors in your post to correct
Aiming to recover 40% of the slickwater injected to establish good reservoir contact, even now there is good contact as demonstrated by the size of the last viewed flare
Isolation packers were drilled out
10 million pounds of frack sand delivered to site for this job, so it is big
Although not all will necessarily have been used, it also implies at 1.2 lb/gallon (I don't know the actual but this should be close) As much as 12 million gallons is possible (286,000 barrels)

No helium on the radar

With the super sleuthing of @oilz and his camera man, we have been given a sneak preview on the success at Alkaid 2. Many thanks to him and his initiative, which he cryptically thanks Josh Young and the short rat pack for stimulating. Great how the acts of dishonesty are rebalanced by the good people out there reacting against it.
Frequent tanker movements are getting some attention, but prove a difficult metric to gauge.
We are unaware of their contents, sales oil or frack water disposal. With 4 oil storage tanks, 1 slop tank and 1 water tank, the frack water storage capacity is the early bottle neck. Much of the tanker movement will be focused on water in the early stages of high frack water recovery from the well.
All truck movement is a positive as getting the water out and away is a parallel supportive activity to increasing oil production. But it does not allow us to estimate oil production today.
Flare pictures remain the best indicator of oil production, the ratio of flare gas to oil production has been revealed in a simple form, with the release of gas production rates at of 150 to 500 mcf/d at the extended flare application hearing. Combine this with the PANR modeled 795 bpd for the 5300 ft horizontal, and it is a simple top end of 795 bpd gives 500 mcf/d of gas.
This makes the read on the flare the most immediate read across to oil production. Although some find it hard to credit, those with industry experience can get a good thumbs suck on flare flow by eye and audio.
My “opinion” is the flare we see in the pictures is more than 1500mcf/d, also did phone a friend who independently came back with a 2000mcf/d estimate. Which get us into Pollyanna land at 3 times 795 bpd at that point in time.
If the flare is sustained the 795 bpd is a virtual certainty, and considerably above, very realistic.
Bear in mind I believe the 795 is a 30 day rate, and the initial 24 hr rate would normally be higher

Somewhat of a seesaw between the two documents, this release indicates it is all on in Feb 2023
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20221207/pdf/45jjs34n9csckx.pdf

Peakybrum 19:40
The well is still potentially cleaning out, as can be seen from the flare growth in the last 24hrs. It needs to stabilize for a meaningful flow number, currently I would speculate it is still growing

That is the money shot, clear lift off separation from flare stack tip, a sign of good velocity and flare pressure.
I am having trouble viewing, the picture pack link, but if this is a sustained flow it looks to be in the range of 1500 to 3000mcf/d or more. To be clear that is 3 to 6 times the top predicted gas flow in the models.

I have the video now, if (IF)this sustains for 24 hours, this is huge, expect an oil flow well above PANR models of 150bpd/1000ft of horizontal.
Relax and wait on the RNS, 1,500mcf/d is the energy equivalence of 250bpd going up the flare
https://discord.com/channels/827703739687239690/827703740143763466/1049522240187793408

https://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Document/Download/2EE41A1D81834BF5AA61016D48F43300/Toolik%20River%20Unit%20Public%20Notice%20App%20and%20Unit%20Agreement%20(2022).pdf
Work this one out as it indicates the public expectation on time line with Hickory 1 drill is at odds with the 88E application for unitization plan.
The submitted plan would have drilling in Alaska summer of 2023 or winter2023 to 2024
Page 9
"Drilling operations are anticipated to take place in summer 2023 if it is possible to
be drilled from a gravel pad adjacent to the Dalton Highway. However, should the preferred
location be away from the Dalton Highway and or not able to be drilled from a summer
gravel pad then the well will be scheduled to be drilled at the latest in the winter season of
2023/24."

Peakybrum 08:11
This is one of the misunderstandings that seems to have taken root, it is not correct. Repost of a previous post that addresses the issue below.

With flow results from Alkaid 2 due in the near term, it is worth a reexamination of what it will mean.
First point, the 150BOPD/1000ft of horizontal is a modelled number, calculated by real data and comparative analysis, based on Alkaid 1 data. (Alkaid 2 data is better) I take particular note this is what the models predict, not what is required to be economic.
Second point, PANR have indicated in a generic form, applicable to Alkaid, Talitha and Theta West that 600 BOPD is the actual requirement for viability
https://www.pantheonresources.com/investors/presentations/666-investor-presentation-april-2022/file
Page 35
Illustrative Development Well 30-40 stages High IRR’s even as low as 600 BOPD
Further supported by Michael Duncan in the 26/04/22 webinar at 1hr 18 mins
https://www.pantheonresources.com/news-media/webinars
“We forecasted about 150BOPD/1000ft of completed horizontal, now I want to stress, that's not what we need, we can make it work with less than that, with significantly less than that”

There is reason to believe the 150BOPD/1000ft is very achievable, as the initial modeling has been conservative, and does not in corporate the improved data from Alkaid 2, nor the increased number of fracture stages per 1000ft implemented in the Alkaid 2 horizontal.
Also reason to believe as low as half of the 150BOPD/1000ft will be viable

Great picture many thanks to @oilz
First thoughts, based on the assumption the flame is stable and given the limits of picture definition. The flame is around 15 to 20 feet tall and a disturbed pattern, eg not like a candle, which indicates wind effect. So what is seen is a back view of a lazy flame that has been bent away from the camera by wind flow.
It also explains the width to height ratio being wrong, if there were no wind this flame could be twice the height.
It is a lazy flame, so not exiting the flare stack under high pressure, it would be taller and thinner before the wind bends it if so.
All said this is very encouraging, as flowback may still be increasing.
I expect the emergence of this picture will generate some pressure on PANR to release an update on progress.

Hi Scenicview
Without claiming specific expertise, I can give an opinion on your questions.
Caution on connecting the proppant flow back to reservoir porosity, proppant flow back is very different from sand flow back. Sand flow back can be related to porosity/unstable reservoir rock returning to the wellbore, but proppant return will be from the larger fractures close to wellbore, where the flow forces have overcome the clamping forces that hold the proppant in place.
Imagine holding a thin sand bed between your palms whilst under a running tap. If your hands are loose it will flow out, if your hands are firm but the water high pressure/flow it will also flow out.
With the correct flow and hand pressure it will be undisturbed. I suspect PANR had a high initial flow at a time the rock was still relaxing back into position, so proppant was not so tightly held. So it becomes a simple process of clean out, until proppant stability is achieved in the near to well bore wider fractures. Note the fracture stage perforations through the horizontal are usually in the 10 to 20mm range, so will exert a degree of limitation to proppant return flow rates
The selection of proppant is essentially the larger the better from a flow perspective, bigger gaps between larger balls. Tempered by the larger balls will not carry into narrow fractures. The size does not overly affect retention in the fractures.
We do not know what experimentation may have been attempted in Alkaid 2, so anything is possible, but we do know a conservative approach was the plan, hence the shorter 5300 ft horizontal