MGM Energy Corp MGMCF

Good summary OilEng

[geodude13]

Good information OilEng; I agree the issue is waste management cost verses formation damage although the illite content could factor into the decisions to reduce risk. 

Several stakeholder questions focused on the water intensity and useage issues and the facing story is ugly for the Horn River/Montneyfrac programs...I think it manages adverse stakeholder reaction in  as well and using recoverable oil will minimize those stressors..

Did you notice the reference in the Husky presentation that:

1. Husky makes reference to constructing two "pads", that would reduce environmental footprint, operational costs and approvals (p.37)
2. Did you notice the reference that they gave up the leases EL441  and EL443 and forefitted the security deposits; this implies the Formations of interest may not extend south into the former lease areas (p.15)
3. If I recall the earlier exploration programs conducted by Husky at Stewart and Summit Creek the traps were significantly impacted (adversely) by faulting/fracturing (International Frontier had some information on traps being smaller and traps were impacted adversely); does the natural fracturing in H-64 pose a trap risk too or does it increase recoveries through dual porosity (p.42).  How does that affect fall-off testing?
4. MGM is punching their proposed well on the same strike.
5. Hopefully this play is more oil-rich verses condensate rich as the economics may be contingent on gas management / emissions (flaring) management.
6. Can the Kee Scarp reefs be used for gas storage or EOR programs for non-marketable NG and NG liquids?  I suppose IOL may have something to say about that for several depleted reservoirs.

Looking good for MGM.  We should have some good idea of how big this play is by April 2013 assuming we have a nice cold and snowy winter all the programs reach the project goals.

Regards,

[OilEng]

Hi Geodude13: Good points.  Your research skills have helped me find a lot of great information such as the Sathu site.  In replay to your e-mail: Your questions about traps point out a major difference between shale and conventional HC deposits which is vital.  In conventional reservoirs such as the Norman Wells field and Summit Creek the oil has been squeezed out of the souce

[mohit.kaul]

Very good analysis.   Could you please provide me the link to the husky presentation, i could ot locate it.   Thanks    

[mohit.kaul]

A very insightfull analysis.  I could not locat the presentation you guys are talkign about Would it be possible for you to please share the url or mail me the presentation. i.d : [e-mail] Thanks Mohit

[OilEng]

Hello Mohit; You can find the Husky and MGM presentation and applications athttps://www.mvlwb.ca/slwb/Registry/Forms/FolderView.aspx?RootFolder=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2emvlwb%2eca%2fslwb%2fRegistry%2f2012&FolderCTID=0x012000847423F586D5C84DB2EFDC5BDFD74993 This is the place they apply for local licences for water and land access with the natives. The Sahtu band is the owners of the surface rights

[mohit.kaul]

Thanks Bill

[shambano1]

MGM's NG is conventional and their oil is shale.  If the oil is proven with more drilling and results from Husky as well as Shell's farm-in well, the canol oil play could be as big or bigger than the baken just based on land size. The beauty of shale is that it's pretty consistant over a large land acreage and that means lots and lots of oil. I don't think MGM's potential

[shambano1]

I'm surprised that no one has commented on my gaff the general retail investor has no clue how much reward PMT has if they are successful with their 2 oil wells in 2013 Of course I was not trying to put in a subliminal message for readers to buy PMT and I really meant MGX, LOL. I must have PMT on my brain.  The 2 companies are related of course as they have the same chairman in one