Mart Resources Inc MAUXF

Expert Commentary from another board

[birchjunk]

5 sands out of 19 tested with total production of 11,718bpd. UM-9 has a dual-tubing string that can allow multiple zones to produce simultaneously. Here is an explanation from the UM-7 test PR.
>
>
> The UMU-7 well has been completed using a dual-tubing string configuration with the XVI (a) and XIV sands completed in the 3 1/2 inch tubing string and the XII(c) and X sands completed in the 2 7/8 inch tubing string. As a result of the completion technology used, although the four sands that have been completed can be opened and closed at any time to allow for optimized production, it is only feasible to produce one sand per tubing string due to different pressures within the formations.
>
>
> Overall this is very good news for Mart. The reservoir is much bigger than originally envisioned. The company has had minimal depletion in production capacity from the existing wells. Some have been running for 6 years. This would indicate that the reservoir is very large. Mart keeps drilling further away and keeps hitting. UM-9 was 2KM away from the nearest well and still tested over 11Kbpd! They definitely need a second pipeline to carry away the field production. There is a reason that the company is expanding their field processing facility to 30,000bpd with plans to expand further!
>
>
> Even if they don't expand their pipeline capacity, Mart can produce at current levels for many years by going back into the existing wells and producing from different zones. UM-7 tested 11,718 from 5 out of 19 zones that showed hydrocarbons. Many of the previous wells are similar. Also UM-9 hit deeper zones that may be under the existing wells but were not tested by previous wells.

[birchjunk]

If one assumes that all sands are equally prospective, then UMU-9 for example would be capable of flowing about 45,000 bpd if all could be produced simultaneously. This amounts to about 2500 bpd from each of the 19 sands.   Its quite probable that not all sands have the same productivity and that the sands chosen were perhaps some of the better ones. Even if one asumes that the rmaining 14

[Bobwins]

I would disagree with your statement.  Mart gets 50% of the field production plus cost recovery of their drilling expenses.  So for Q1, they got a very high 82% of the field production instead of 50% because of recent drilling activity.     BUT it's not increased "cashflow".  Looking at the big picture, they SPENT the money first and the JV is returning it to

[mjh9413]

That is about it: it washes but the changes in cash commitments which are recouped in later qtrs do distort cash flows, as does the likes of non-cash depreciation in each qtr, eg oil&gas property depn. was $24MM in one qtr and $8MM this Mar qtr end.Changes in restricted cash also distort comparative numbers. Still, as stated before I cannot see that the proposed