The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Neversatisfied, it's clear they have cut off the flow rates from the nitrogen lift period, so not a question of timing. This was likely because it would have brought the average rate down IMHO (if not why cut it). This potential tarting up of the results raises suspicion which could have been avoided. The total fluid rates (600bpd) seem good though but gas rates are highest we have seen on the combined acreage. How this affects commerciality will be interesting. Pantheon we're projecting 1 gas injector for every 3 wells for what appears to be a significantly lower GOR, but proper analysis required to get accurate GOR number. Interesting to see how SMD plays out this week.
Perhaps is not just as simple as multiplying up to get a number you want. Alkaid 2 was perceived as a failure.
Alkaid 1 Vertical Result
-- A 6 foot interval (from a c.240 foot interval of net pay) was perforated and flow tested at 80-100 BOPD light oil (40 degree API).
Musk, anyone who doesn't join in the happy club, when Lambo talk on here gets pelters. Given current operations it makes perfect sense for PANR shareholders to be interacting on this board.
People like you who claim 88e can simply get a bank loan for $200M are far more dangerous than those questioning the data released in the flow test RNS.
The misinformation extends beyond 88e to people saying Pantheon never had any wells which flowed naturally. In fairness they have been misled by the RNS.
Any real investors would do well do watch Pantheon's strategy update webinar from last Summer. Funding options for the project and cash flow projections for wells delivering 1500 bpd IP30 rates are discussed. As well as the cost to getting to first oil, estimated at $120M. Vendor financing will likely be more difficult due to the difference in scale of the assets.
If 88e want to post tweets promoting the Next Investors article which essentially said buy 88e as it's cheaper than Pantheon, they should expect for this to be challenged.
It's a long road from flow tests to production as Pantheon shareholders know.. Anyone kidding themselves two flow test will change everything will be sorely disappointed IMHO.
Lbag, see my previous post to show your claim regards Pantheon not being able to flow naturally is false.
Just like MMac's claim that it is commercial.
The 600bbls/day total fluids is certainly encouraging but I doubt that commerciality will be claimed after a test which only flowed oil ~14 hours (given it averaged 42bs/day and produced 24.8bbls). I doubt if 88e had higher figures in the artificial lift period that they would not have combined these with the natural flow period. Note also whilst they confirmed oil cuts increased through the test, they did not make the same claim for oil rates. This is why I believe they cut flow period used to derive the average to the natural flow period.
There will likely be a chunk of NGLs to be added in also given the high gas rates. This could limit there ability conduct a extended well test using a horizontal given issues Pantheon has at Alkaid.
00:25
Neversatisfied, I can understand how you think ‘42 bopd under natural flow back. Something neighbouring acreage has not managed to do.’ Given that 88e's recent RNS stated ‘with flow back from other reservoirs in adjacent offset wells only producing under nitrogen lift.’ However this appears incorrect given the below information released by Pantheon.
Alkaid 2 ZOI
‘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 bpd of hydrocarbon liquids which includes oil, condensate and natural gas liquids (NGL's),’
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/PANR/operational-update-qdows7bk03aci0x.html
Note 88e had previously referenced the Alkaid ZOI as an SFS play, all be it there maps didn't show it extending to Alkaid.
Alkaid 2 SMD
‘Thus it was always expected to encounter poorer reservoir quality than in the core of the SMD horizons in the Ahpun field to the southwest. 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
Troughsnout, I am sorry but there is no inference from Olderwiser it was for pressure support, it was in response to you saying 'this will be difficult to handle to avoid excessive gas production'. His point therefore related to gas handling not secondary recovery techniques. He also added a comment on how limiting the drawdown in the SMD had been successful in response to your gas production reference.
Likewise Pantheon have never quoted anything else other than primary recovery figures. Your entire argument today is redundant born from your own misunderstandings.
The gas cap reference was to highlight how you are mistaken that being at are below bubble point means you immediately require secondary recovery techniques.
As I have said before, to truly assess Pantheon's plays you need all the data and all the know how, you have zero of these as your arguments today highlight. Yet you seem happy to make grand assumptions whilst impugning those who do. Why don't you ask your chum in the service industry if he just says what his customers pay him to say, I can guarantee you he wouldn't be your chum much longer.
Troughsnout, Pantheon need the gas reinjection wells to dispose the gas, as currently there is no offtake route. At no point has it been suggested that this is required to achieve the 8-10% recovery rates Pantheon are quoting. If they reinject the gas into the reservoirs and this provides secondary recovery great, as currently Pantheon's costings include the reinjection wells but account for zero secondary recovery. The need is primarily for disposal not for recovery, the requirement for this is specific to Alaska and the current lack of gas offtake. Note Pikka is planning for both water injection and PWRI, Willow is planning for PWRI and gas reinjection so perhaps not as unusual as you would suggest.
I think you are wrongly assuming that reservoirs below or near bubble point lack energy to produce, this is completely wrong as I understand it as shown by the high recovery rates from reservoirs with gas caps, more gas equals more energy from gas expansion. A quick google will show you that typically less than 5% of OIP is recovered above the bubble point.
Brombarb, all Pantheon modelling is based on Primary Recovery and will be based on measured reservoir pressures and measured GOR. At no point has it been suggested gas reinjection is required for pressure support as this would be secondary recovery. Happy to be proven wrong if someone can point otherwise.
Troughsnout, I am no wise sage merely a production chemist. As such I am aware of limited knowledge regards reservoir engineering. However, looking back at Olderwiser’s comments I can see he doesn’t at any point say produced gas needs to be reinjected for the ‘reservoirs to work’ . The likely reason for this is that Olderwiser understands that all Pantheon’s recovery predictions/type curves, including that carried out by SLB, are based on Primary recovery only. Pantheon have been very clear on this, although it seems you have missed it.. I believe you have wrongly assumed that when Olderwiser used the term ‘gas reinjection’ that this was for pressure support (secondary recovery) opposed to disposal. That’s not to say that Pantheon won’t utilise gas reinjection for pressure support in the future, however it does not form part of their or 3rd party modelling to date.
You have also misinterpreted his points regards nitrogen lift. At no point was he suggesting artificial lift wouldn’t be required in the future, rather he was making the point that Pantheon would use produced gas long term for lift opposed to nitrogen. He also referenced his experience regards low yield oil fields where the nitrogen is produced onsite to counter your not inexpensive claim.
Regards produced water I am pretty sure that Pantheon have suggested using PWRI as they have always expected water. There is no ‘gotcha’ moment here I am afraid. Luckily unlike you I believe SLB will have awareness of all of the above issues and build them into their development model due this quarter. Perhaps we should leave this to the experts, it seems you have some pretty basic misconceptions perhaps stemming from your background being finance opposed to reservoir engineering/geology.
It's maths not narcissism.
Brombarb, current plan for PANR hot tip is 200,000-250,000. Eastern Ahpun leases which look just like Western Ahpun discovery on 3D seismic should be Willow quality reservoir. If funding can be sorted out the ability to get to 200,000bpd is very real. Will take ~7years from first oil.
Taximan, why limit yourself to Pantheon who have >10times the resource estimates 88e are testing. Why not target the Conoco market cap of $150B. I mean they operate on the North slope as well, let's not let common sense get in the way of things.
Gemster, geodes is certainly an expert but I don't believe he has Alaskan experience, he made his name in the Denver Basin I believe. No need to embellish what is already a considerable CV. I shared a link to his find previously.
Troughsnout, you are no conflating two different issues. You asked why Pantheon never requested a commercial review of Kodiak for which I answered. It does not make sense for them to provide a development plan with critical information missing for the whole Kodiak development.
You are now comparing a summary report from NSAI and a full report from ERCE. As I understand resource reports can be requested in two formats, the long form report and the summary report. The difference being you pay more the long report which regurgitates the information submitted by the company. Importantly there is no difference in the work carried out to undertake the analysis in a summary report or a long form report. Furthermore it would have been sheer folly to for Pantheon to issue a report detailing 3D seismic maps ahead of the lease auction late last year. Therefore your IER versus CPR thread title is completely misleading. Oh and lets not pretend that NSAI are not a 'top auditor' and lets not pretend the the IER wasn't any less independent and prepared in accordance with 2018 PRMS. Your comment that the IER 'says what mgmt want it to say and floats around in cloud cuckoo land' are shameful.
I will agree with you in that you don't have the information (or the technical capability) to form an opinion on project commerciality which is why you blog was lacking in any substance. The good news is the 'large companies' in discussions with PANR do have both of these. As do SLB who's type curves suggest our worst reservoir can deliver IP30 rates of 2700 per day, but of course they were paid for their expert opinion, yawn...
Jason, that wording doesn't confirm a commercial assessment will be carried out. I would imagine they will wait to further appraisal up dip occurs. Indeed they have only recently completed their leasing strategy. However LKA ran a commercial assessment in their IERs for Alkaid and SMD, note these will be dated now.
Troughsnout claims there is a massive difference regards IERs and CPRs when as I understand it there is not. Having spoken to an ex oil industry professional who advised on IERs and CPRs, the main difference is the amount of people who undertake the review.
It would be great if troughsnout could share the modelling behind his claims it's not commercial. However I am aware he doesn't have the data or the know how to undertake this.