Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kormac who wrote (123349)	8/16/2009 9:55:52 AM
From: tom pope	Respond to of 206118

That's very interesting, thanks!

To: kormac who wrote (123349)	8/16/2009 11:18:42 PM
From: cyesp	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206118

I think this analysis is flawed by the outer decline assumption which results in under estimating the eur. I have never seen a tight formation such as a fractured shale with an outer decline of 15%. 6-7% is a typical conservative assumption, and I say assumption because it takes 7-12 years for the hyperbolic decline to bend to that point. Many tight gas fields are intentionally infilled to the point of well to well interference to maximize field EUR. When infilling occurs, I have seen increases in the decline rates. As many fields are now infilled earlier than 7-12 years, the outer decline for the reservoir may never be observed. In these cases we use simulation and core gas measurements to estimate GIP and recovery factors.