Lots of solid commentary here so I definitely don't need to...

Lots of solid commentary here so I definitely don't need to re-hash it all other than to say this is the result that PYM and we, as shareholders are looking for. Slow and steady wins the race here I think.

Reading a great deal on cash cost per bbl in this leg of posts. I think you will find that the stated lifting/cash costs per bbl will represent Capitola and not the entire company production (i.e. it excludes Four Rivers). I also think that while, in the current environment every investor and producer should be focused on the total cost for a company to deliver a BO to market. That is, G&A, Leasing, Exploration (drilling, testing etc) and of course operating, we also need to look at the bigger picture. cmonaussie has made some pretty good calcs here people. he could be spot on ( nice work by the way cmonaussie) Does that worry anyone? It shouldn't. Why? What we are talking about right now is like a proof of concept with PYM. We are talking about the economics of three wells and while that is relevant to the here an now its not what this play is about. If these wells settle in at 30bopd each on cmonaussies numbers they would potentially be loss makers at current oil price and services costs. But that's not what these wells represent and here's why. The economics of a field are only improved by further development or enhancement of that field. So if with three wells NP comes in @ $175k, what do the economics look like when there are 5 wells, then 8 wells, and so on. What costs are either stagnant or increase at a decreasing rate as an additional well is drilled. 1) Acreage/leasing - remains stagnant. .2) Operating = rate decreases .3) drilling ( in current environment it is cheaper to drill a well today than it was yesterday) .4) general services .5) infra structure ( one set of tank batteries may service 3 to 4 wells .6) insurance .7) Geological and Geophysical ( G&G reduces over time as the knowledge data base on the field is increased - means less man hours = less costs .8) completion costs- unlocking the recipe for completing a certain formation adds returns (Oil) and reduces costs ( lets frac the Cline with a slickwater frac with xx% HCL and XX% propant @ XXXX pressure as opposed to just a best guess) and as a result $$ revenue and profitability. I could go on and on.

So, having said all that these wells need to be thought of as the first part of a longer process. The first part of the process is prove there is oil there. Tick. Second part is focus on the recipe for drilling, completion
( perfing/frac) and production ( pumping rate and pressure ) in the most effective and economic manner
( suspect that is extremely high priority for this company ) and the third part involves development.

I remain a fan of this story and the Permian.

These views are mine and mine alone. Every investor should do their own research and perform their own due diligence.