RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Ruudinfranceskiptoggle wrote: They need to show they can: keep production online for more than 50% of the month, show repeatable results in the drilling program, and keep the exceptional netback results at the upper end of the industry performance. If they get through 2 quarters showing the same results then the market will buy back in. That is a tall order and a lot of work to gain back the trust lost in the stage debacle from 2017.
The question is where would BBI be if they hadn't went with Stage but with more expensive but proven technology? Higher costs/longer timelines would mean less wells but there wouldn't be the lingering aftersmell of how they managed the failures. I don't know the answer but I would appreciate someone evaluating this hypothetical scenario. Maybe we are still ~0.55 a share but needing to do additional capital issue to keep going.
BBI's production problems are due to the poor performance of the third-party processing plant, it has nothing to do with BBI. That will all change when Tidewater is up and running.
As for repeating well performance, they have already demonstrated that. There is some variability in amount and types of liquids produced, but that is the nature of the business.
There is no reason why their netbacks won't continue to be top-tier, especially with rising oil prices.
As for the effect of the Stage failures, that is behind us. You have to remember that the share price got WAY ahead of itself on the hype by the pump-and-dump team. Today's share price reflects today's fundamentals. Remember, the "market" doesn't pay for future potential and what-ifs. But BBI has laid the foundation for much higher production, and that is a 'when', not an 'if'. The "market" will reward BBI when, not if, they deliver.
As for the rest of your post that contains even more revisionist history by Lucas, no comment required.