Sincere thanks for those tables Cmon.
But, aren't you taking and implying the most negative approach from these calculations?
Surely this field in the eyes of the producers and explorers is more about the number of producing wells and not simply the number of barrels per well!
Everyone should be very aware of that with this deal.
You surely don't think that shareholders and prospective shareholders should be expecting to see every well having produced over 1.000BO to justify being a shareholder????
You are MUCH smarter than that Cmon. Are you now being a bit mischievous????
Clearly, the vast majority of those 22 wells have reached or are close to having reached near maximum decline rates. It is a bit disingenuous to just ignore them and to concentrate your prime conclusion from those figures without knowing the age of each well.
It would certainly be of concern if from all of those 22 wells just 7 were at minimum commercial levels, which, I believe you are implying??
But, we have been told quite clearly that AKK knew that when they purchased and that they were fully aware that those lower numbers relate to wells that have been in production for over 6 years and are fully aware of the rapid decline rates. It is all there in their announcement!!
• Steady long term production rate of ~52 barrels of oil per day delivers stable cash flow to AKK – major production declines have already occurred •
Wells produce for 20+ years, some for over 100 years
• Profitable wells, minimal operating costs, no-leasing fees and long-term haulage contract in place
To even suggest otherwise is bordering on dishonesty.
Seeing that you have mischievously used Whisky's SUGGESTED numbers (most unlike you Cmon, you who prides yourself on FACTS, let's see if Whisky even bothers to reply to your very misleading use of his name.
