Indeed.Just a couple of other points to note.Was hoping there...

Indeed.

Just a couple of other points to note.

Was hoping there would be a bit more discussion / analysis on week’s presentation so have waited to bring them up.

If you look at the EUR numbers for the FMDP and compare them to the existing wells, what becomes apparent?

I’m talking about total reserves per well AND reserves per lateral foot, remembering that Jewell had ~6600 lateral, Rangers and WP ~7400 ft and Flames was a 10,000 ft.

The effect of the data gained from the Courbett development and the benefit BRK should achieve from that learning is obvious… compare Flames to Iginia, they are almost identical wells within the same location and zone. The gains in the Woodford look to be in the order of 20%

The rocks are slightly different in the Rangers block,( deeper and less oily than FMDP ) but look at the Maroons EUR ( 5000 ft lateral) compared to Rangers , WP ( 50 % longer).

Another point.

The FMDP will b e the least “ efficient “ of the drilling programs because of the 2 short 5000 ft laterals in terms of well cost per lateral ft. They will drill ~ 30,000 ft of vertical well section in 4 wells to get 30,000 Ft of lateral hydrocarbon producing section….. If Bruins is drilled N-S (like the FMDP ) , this time with 5 Woodford wells, they will drill ~ 37-38,000 vertical feet for ~ 50,000 feet of productive lateral section .

The FMDP will benefit however benefit from having half of the productive zones being Sycamore, whereas Bruins will be all in the Woodford.

So much to like about BRK operations for the short/ medium term, and the price of oil is playing ball atm.. we want it to continue to do so when the wells start to produce.

Cheers

Dan