Thanks again from me P&B for this transcript. Again, never really read it closely until now, and had trouble hearing much of what Paul was saying in the video preso, either that or I wasn't listening too closely, believe it or not.
It's interesting just how much more specific he gets in this preso compared to the first. Almost as if He felt a need to divulge as much as He possibly could to empower both holders and potential investors.
He is saying that he knows what this play holds to within a very high probability given the analysis he has performed on this play and the North Slope Basin Petroleum system with his vapour phase model, and that Ice 1 was simply a confirmation of what He knew already.
Not only this but, other oil experts concur with him about what this acreage holds.
This is not to say He is certain as to how the HRZ will behave when fracked. In fact this is his next major hurdle that contains two aspects which might kill the play.
First being does the HRZ have the ability to flow?
Second, will it flow economically enuf to make the play viable?
As many would know he is a great believer in his ACB methodology of problem resolution, where the problem resolution step B, is one that requires
* Passion
* Collaboration with experts
* Learn on the fly
* Persistence
* Embrace informed & rapid failure
On failing, which He maintains one cannot succeed without.
* Fail FAST
* Fail frequently
* Fail SMART
Now the then shale exploration models had rock mechs having to be brittle silaceous with open fractures and a Ro hardness factor of 1.4 to 1.6. Essentially the Barnett GAS shale model.
But then came Haynesville Marcellus et al where other shale types were proven to be gas productive.
Basinski asked the question C, why not a liquids rich play?
Not only that but, why not a liquids rich play in tighter unfractured shale, and indeed a rock chemistry never encountered before (sound familiar?) in a predominantly carbonate bearing strata?
This in fact turned out to be the Eagle Ford play.
It was known to exist half a century earlier and had been drilled numerous times but everything about trying to extract the oil pointed to failure.
B, the resolving stage was stopping the oil industry visualising successful production.
But then along came Paul Basinski and Burlington who had the temerity to visualise the liquids rich/vapour phase and recognise that in this combination, when fracked correctly, you would get upwards of 5000 BPD in liquids.
The play hasn't looked back after being taken out by CP who spent up big on resource delineation and a pilot program which was all driven by Paul M Basinski and his team of "oil heretics" that used all the Basinski tenants of problem resolution. But first and foremost, seeing the potential where no one else did.
So here we are at the next stage of proving if the HRZ play will work. Another part of the final
non-linear methodology as applied to the HRZ. Step B. And within that step the potential to fail fast.
But the unconventional completion industry is extremely versatile in solving the many issues with each and every play. No play is the same, and in fact quite often, there are many variations of parameters within each play that require completion flexibility.
As Paul said in the presentation the stimulation program is quite sophisticated, which will probably give cause for caution as well as optimism, as they appear to be covering various scenarios if the word sophisticated is being applied to the completion program.
But given my research on fracking of late, this is far from a matter of simply cracking the rock, pumping in some proppant and letting the hydrocarbons flow.
The whole process must be optimised via various
Frack methods and fluid additives to allow for any permeability problems that might arise from the frack and proppant embedment program. And this is all being done in a new type of rock just as PB did in the Eagle Ford for CP.
Will they succeed ?
Not too long now.
d.
Expand
(20min delay)