Chinook Energy Inc. Common CNKEF

RE:RE:RE:RE:dishonesty, or stupidity

[bouquets]

That's a good point, JDavis, though I'm not sure that I can tell from this passage whether this blogger actually doesn't know this fact or he's passing over that to make a slightly different argument (the wells' production figures will not be as high as their test figures).

Still, my question is how much lee-way a company has when setting a well's production?  Clearly, Chinook can throttle it back to stay within their compressor-capacity until December.  But can companies fiddle with this to (e.g.) meet their exit predictions?

JDavis17 wrote:

bouquets wrote: On the relationship between test production and IP30-60-90, there's a SA blog post here where someone has pulled together the reports for Chinook's other Montney wells:

https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/40043476-canadian-opportunities/5045347-might-chinook-beat-2017-exit-flow-guidance

Two take-aways are (1) that Chinook's neighboring wells usually decline from these tests and (2) the more important constraint right now is compressor capacity, which is scheduled to double in December. 

The SA writer says"
"  If you compare the 24-hr test rate of Chinook's first nine Montney wells, those figures fall significantly in the actual well-head production found in the IP30, IP60, IP90, which can fall by half (note A-071-F, B-071-F, C-095-F, D-095-F).  Not all the wells fall so precipitously.  But insofar as there is a pattern, it looks like the largest producers have fall the most. "

Like a lot of people on this board, he doesn't seem to understand that the production doesn't "fall" suddenly when the wells are put on production, but they are simply not operated at the same high rates as when they were tested.
I remain amazed that so many don't understand that simple fact.