RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Brouwiedanale wrote: JD, I have to agree that a lot of your posts do add value to this board. I'm long BBI, but there is one item that caused me a bit of a concern. Would like to hear your perspective... They stated that they now believe they will need only 5 wells (vs. 10) to meet Tidewater obligations. What this tells me is that they expect their northern wells to be more gassy than expected. 10 wells would have generate way more condensate than 5 and would have maximized the available egress. So why is everyone thinks 5 better than 10? What am I missing?
Considering how high the liquids/gas ratio of Kelt's well to the northwest came in at, I suppose Garth had hoped for something similar with our well, but instead it came in as one of the "drier" wells we have drilled. (but it is still a very good well). So the high gas production may be part of the reason for the decrease in well count to fill the Tidewater agreement. But as I have been pointing out for months, BBI keeps talking about the Tidewater plant servicing the wells south of the river as well as the north lands. So they may be planning to build a pipeline under the river so they can quit using the crappy gas plant that continues to run only some of the time.
Now it won't be cheap to run a pipeline under the river, but it sure is better than only being able to produce your wells half of the time.
And the only real reason that 5 wells is better than 10 is that, until the day we are producing at full capacity and pumping out cash flow, we have to borrow the money to drill these wells. If it is cheaper to run a pipeline from all of our existing wells south of the river than drill 5 more wells up north, it is probably the best investment, as that pipeline will service a lot of the northern lands in the future. JMO