i can't believe the merger isn't going to happen. denbury shareholders are stupid. PR oversold the EOR thing and has now crippled us so that we can't diversify. CK will have to explain to them why it's good to NOT have your eggs all in one basket. More levers is what this company needs. The ability to capitalize on short cycles in commodity prices is what we need. It would complement our portfolio so well. id--ts...that's all I can come up with.
13 replies (most recent on top)
For 5ndh: Did you read article in current JPT (Journal of Petroleum Technology in case you're not in the know) about the disaster of "cube" development? If you're still a believer then ask Concho and Encana how that's working for them.
Pvac going down down down
For: -4aqt
As a matter of fact...pad drilling actually DECREASES the parent-child effects and also improves the complex fracture behavior you are trying to accomplish in the stimulation. So...pad drilling and simulfracks improve the overall recovery and performance. As to leveling out production, you are correct. It never is "flat", but you do establish eventually a base decline rate for older wells that is quite low and that is the decline you have to beat. Pad drilling and operations of that nature allow for efficiencies is many ways and that's why you see the majors going to what is now being termed "cube" development. It's a manufacturing process. Yes, there are sweet spots, but in an efficient development program you can make some great returns. You need to get some experience somewhere else. You can't beat the monster by hopping around your acreage and constantly moving your rig around, but you can maintain the monster and make money by planning efficient development knowing that not all your wells are created equal. The long spud to production times do hinder your ROR to some degree, but no more than the long development periods prior to commencing a CO2 flood. I've done both.
Okay @YcwP7uT-4fak, tell me how high well decline rates, pad drilling with average 7 months spud to first production, limited size of the sweet spots, and parent-child well interference, do you "get to a certain production level and stop trying to grow aggressively." The reason you can't stop drilling is your base production never stabilizes.
Yes...i have seen them. That's why i made the comment that you get to a certain production level and stop trying to grow aggressively. The returns are there.
Reply to @YcwP7uT-3hvu: have you seen the rate- time profile of those PVA wells in the EF?
When will the next round of layoff's start? We can't cover the current G&A cost (PLANO) now without the lower cost of PV Operations.
Oh it’s you! I apologize that I didn’t make the connection at first, probably because you didn’t address someone as “chief” or “pal” in the typical manner.
Clearly the person who says "you can't stop drilling" has not experience with shale. There is a ponzi scheme nature when you want to use "shales" as a growth model...you do have to plow more and more cash into it. But if you are long-term focused and returns driven, then you don't try to grow production from a shale at 10-15% YoY. You get to a point where you are maximizing returns and use it as a cash cow and drill/develop within cashflow. Think before you speak...and get a little experience in that area as well. You've probably been at denbury for so long you don't know how anything else works.
If denbury shareholders weren't a problem....then why did the share price tank when the deal was announced....and continued to get beat down. Yeah...oil prices dropped around the same time, but not that much. Clearly, denbury shareholders at the time of the announcement didn't believe in the deal or that wouldn't have happened....who's the id--t now. Share price reaction is indicative of shareholder perception and to some agree approval of the idea. Time for you to take a hike.
DNR is better off w/o PVA. Shale is a Ponzi scheme (1st in get paid, last get nothing, those who stay can't stop drilling).
Yeah only id--t here is the one who believes denbury shareholders are at fault.
DNR shareholders weren’t the problem though; it was PVA shareholders that didn’t want the deal.