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.
Troughsnout, as a reminder you are the troll. You are the one accusing management of being deceitful and indeed paying service companies to be deceitful as well .
There is likely a simple reason a commercial assessment was omitted from Kodiak. Management have previously highlighted that the reservoir poro/perm data was cut by NSAI to that witnessed in Theta West and therefore any commercial assessment would have been undertaken omitting the up dip portions of the reservoir. Therefore any commercial assessment at this time would have been inaccurate. Interestingly in recent interview Jay IMHO alluded that analogues have been identified which may remove this capping. As Pantheon have discussed in numerous webinars, any flow modelling has been undertaken utilising witnessed poro/perm data. That is recent type curves have been generated using that witnessed in Alkaid 2 vertical topsets/SMD test. Note Pantheon have latterly confirmed the permeability highlighted was the matrix permeability not the frac permeability which you wrongly called out in your blog.
In regards to Ahpun Pantheon have already confirmed SLB are undertaking a development plan for the Ahpun Topsets following concluding the development plan for the deeper Alkaid Zone. Interestingly I note you have already deemed Alkaid non commercial without undertaking any of the work you are asking to be carried out. Ahpun Topsets have a fuller set of data with I believe seven penetrations and one flow test in the 'feather edge' of the reservoir. Pantheon have full core data from the Pipeline State 1 well which is nearer the heart of the reservoir (another point which you were incorrect about in your blog). Therefore they have a fuller set of data which allows SLB to complete the Western Ahpun development plan. We will have to wait in see if the development plan utilises 'not inexpensive' nitrogen for long term gas lift requirements as you suggested in your piece, I suspect not . Pantheon has said they have been sharing all type curve analysis with those in the data room, I would hope the service companies don't adopt your approach of service companies telling you what ever they get paid to.
In regards to Ahpun east the work for this will be completed once they have undertaken an appraisal well. Standard depth of burial modelling supported by 3D seismic suggest that this reservoir is very similar to Willow. However it appears from your blog that you don't believe in the vast amount of evidence supporting reservoir quality getting better as you get shallower both in depth and DMax.
Note, you are not living rent free in my head. Typically bulletin boards work by someone posting comments and others replying and so on. I believe Shareguru22 uses this language as well, perhaps you share the same troll phrase book.
Troughsnout predicting a pivot to Helium whilst failing to acknowledge that to produce the Helium they need to produce the gas, and to produce the gas they need to produce the oil.
No wonder he doesn't hang about to defend this nonsense.
Troughsnout, your post is classic of the shorting genre. Claim there is massive placings coming up and support with your pseudo science blog updates. You seem to love the word fantasy, it appears right up there with 'heterolithic'.
Here's a few 'fantasies' for you:
Your oil career
Your technical knowledge
Your understanding of gas lift
Your awareness of the Pipeline State data and full core
Your understanding of the permeability calcs from the pressure bomb
Your understanding of the Geomark GOR analysis
Your modelling to disprove the claims you made about the type curves
I could go on but you have shown you are unwilling to defend your pseudo science when its been challenged.
Remember you are the troll.
I must admit I fail to understand the panic regards if we get something in the next few days or not. The board have guided to end of Q1 but there is no deadline which I have heard people talk off. If it slips a few days or even weeks it won't change my investing plans. I feel people are creating a rod for their own back.
The guy with the Pokémon geodude name is credited with the discovery of the field 88e are using as an analog (codell sandstone DB) in their presentations.
https://explorer.aapg.org/story/articleid/39052/raymonds-folly-the-codell-play-of-the-denver-basin
I have disagreed with him on a few things (mainly around 88e), but he has discovered one more oil field than I have and I respect his knowledge and experience.
Ah, the go to 'paid for reports' line. Moving past impugning Pantheon and extending it to the whole oil service industry. I have worked for an oil service company for ~20 years and I can tell your claims that if you pay a company money they will tell you what you want are for the birds. Of course the real people we should believe are ex fund managers who are shorting the stock, or current fund managers like Stahel with his fraudulent documents.
Quite frankly having read the factual inaccuracies in Peel Hunts previous coverage of Pantheon I hold them in as little regard as you. It astonishes me that guys like you think you can gloss over the science required to properly address or critique Pantheon's assets, just say heterogenous and heterolithic a few times that will do . I understand Peel Hunt's last piece was pulled from Bloomberg portal due to its factual inaccuracies. Give me SLB/Baker et al over them any day.
Your piece was dire, let's just shout it's tight and gassy. Let's ignore the GOR work from Geomark. Let's ignore all accepted theory regards depth of burial and its effects on poro/perm numbers. Christ David Hobbs was Chief Energy Strategist at IHS and Head of Research at KAPSARC (leading a team of 100 researchers i understand) and you classified these positions as him being a consultant. I note you still are tweeting about him after blocking him on Twitter, classy stuff. Exactly the same tactics as Stahel and Fraser Perry, what company you keep. If he was just a consultant what does that make you with your history degree I believe. No wonder you don't put your name to stuff.
The Halliburton piece has been covered numerous times, I think they held less than 10% of the old acreage, but here you are bringing it up repeatedly.
Of course you yet again failed to mention the company have full core from the Pipeline State well, nearer the heart of the SMD B reservoir, a point I have told you before and indeed the company reconfirmed recently. But you still think the data measured at Talitha, Alkaid 2 are anomalies.
On the questions selected by Hondris piece, you have to go as far back as January to find a live Q&A session. Yet here you are claiming this never happens. In reality it's you who limits those that can respond to your tweets etc, real brave man.
No signs of flaring on the 22nd
https://www.reddit.com/r/EEENF/s/RSnA2mu0s3