Gassed
Here you are again lacking comprehension and responding with an attack on Cmon implying his is purposely being misleading when in fact it's YOU who doesn't understand. Now I am going to pose something to you directly and I hope you respond as you have a tendency to respond to posts which require you to argue the facts from a analytical point of view . You prefer motherhood statements and regurgitating the crap Akk release such as 100 year production time frames
here it goes
I think we can all agree that the purchase doesn't make economic sense on production rates alone. They need to raise about 2.8m ( 2.5 plus costs ) to but this asset and as others have shown a cumulative break even on net revenue is over 10 years and that doesn't include discounted cash flow so in reality closer to 14 years. That leaves only one way to justify this purchase, on future potential . Now if you understand economic theory , the limited resources ( in AKK's case very limited ) should be distributed to the area that will provide highest returns. Now as pointed out if it is true there current acreage is better than this new acreage which they have been claiming it is for so long , and they can drill a well that can produce 85 or 100 IP for only 500k, why not spent the 2.5 m on 5 wells as opposed to this purchase. This would produce higher revenue on year one and the next 5 years at least
It is this question that remains unanswered by you gassed and all your friends
So can you justify the purchase based on what AKK have been telling you for the last 12 months
Give it a crack gassed on don't avoid the question Iike you do when answer is too hard
AKK Price at posting:
0.6¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
