1)Monetisation outcome is missing but you can be certain that the some of the monetisation process is underway. However BRK will almost certainly not announce what form and how far they are down that pathway until a deal is penned.
2)Bruins DSU is not yet under court Order ( in the court process right now) and hasn't been pooled so it is unlikely that Bruins will be involved in any monetisation event until orders and pooling ( which can't proceed before orders) are received. Does this mean a monetisation event needs to wait for this?... possibly yes if the event is full sale of all SWISH assets, and possibly no if the event is partial sale , JV or partnership.
3)The Continental Resources pad development immediately to the south of the Flames and Bruins units is essentially an " experiment" to ascertain what is the most effective way to develop the Sycamore and Woodford horizons. It seems that the " wine rack " development scenario , as per below from a Camino presentation for 2022, ( note... below is not a SWISH DSU and for example purposes only)
.....where the Sycamore, Woodford zones ( which are directly in contact with each other) are pad drilled back to back, competed back to back , and then placed on production simultaneously is the best way to develop the resource. The best way in terms of cost control for D&C due to the large scale back to back nature of the development. The best way in terms of of reserve drainage due to the frack reach and in terms of timing as with simultaneous flowback ,there will be no well shut ins . CLR should now be in the process of simultaneously flowing back their 11+ well program and as this is the first such development of this type in the SWISH, it stands to reason BRK will want to study the results of this program before it makes any concrete decisions on it's monetisation pathway.
ie) point (3) may have an effect on point (1) in potentially timing AND pathway/ pathways selection.
Your statement " Developing wells have dropped the sp from .038 to where it is.FFS" is not entirely correct. The share price did drop while Jewell, Rangers and Flames were drilled, but attributing the fall in SP to the drilling of those wells is not accurate IMO . These were not development wells, but necessary initial DSU wells to prove up the reserves , capture those DSU acres and reserves to HBP status..... without this drilling, BRK would have nothing!
The only development well drilled in SWISH by BRK is the Wolf Pack well and we have seen the stunning results emanating from this well thus far.
BRK's process mantra is Prospect, Prove and Monetise.... these are operational steps. We are at the last stage of the process for the SWISH asset, and BRK's results up to now in terms of delivering on operations has been nothing short of first class. IMO, it's a case of letting the team do what they have stated all along they will do, get the best result for shareholders .
Just for fun, being doing some digging into the CLR project.
Some well plots from CLR applications
The above graphic shows the CLR DSU's outlined in blue, with the acreage totals, (eg 320 H = 320 acre DSU)
The Flames DSU is the full Section 3 and the eastern half of Section 10. The Bruins DSU is all of section 11 and the southern half of section 2.
The red well is one of the Sycamore wells pertaining to the yellow DSU. You can see the other Sycamore Courbet wells not highlighted ( in grey). You can see a grey well path just above the red well crossing through the non Flames DSU in the western half of section 10. It was the completion and fracking of this well and it's proximity to the Flames that caused the extended shut in of our well.
Our SWISH acreage is effectively in the mix of this very expensive CLR " Science experiment"
COURBET SYCAMORE WELL PATHS
This graphic shows the other Sycamore Courbet well paths in red.
COURBET WOODFORD WELLS
This graphic shows the Courbet Woodford well paths.
We can see the original Courbet well ( in grey) transversing North-South in the right hand side of section 22 and 27.
The most obvious thing is there are more of them and at a much tighter spacing as compared to the Sycamore. This is because the Woodford is a tight shale unit, whereas the Sycamore is a limestone formation and has much more natural porosity and permeability so the fracks travel further through the formation.
The Woodford lays just below the Sycamore so they can be effectively be treated as one formation, where the fracks from the Sycamore travel down through the Woodford, and vice versa... this is part of the reason why the wine rack development is so efficient in draining the reserves.
Cheers
Dan
BRK Price at posting:
1.5¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)