RE:Waterflood? Did it really happen?I'm with you on that Mercatos, we have been mislead by the waterflood hype. The first giveway was, decline rates keep raising.
The presented numbers and projections apparently were fictitious.
Page 20, September presentation they now say ....
Cost per well ... $300,000,
years to pay back ..... 3 years
3 years to pay back $300,000 is not very good at all.
This indicates to me that the waterflood financials are dismal, no where as attractive as company claimed right up to the Q2 conference call.
If it seems to be too good to be true, ....................... .
Industry wide, waterflood in not necessarily the best solution. The cheapest, not necessarily the best.
mercatos wrote: Well I have gone through the presentation again and I missed this the first time around.
Remember 2016 and 2017 how Scott pushed waterflood and how that was going to improve decline rate and increase cash flow. Avg return aprox 12-18 months.
Well guys I dont think it ever happened and CPG admitted so.
See page 20 on Sept Corp Presentation
This is the line that p iss me off.
Waterflood program was underfunded in recent years due to focus on near-term volume growth
Well lets hope now that this is really going to be addressed.