A great photo-opp wasted in my view...when it should have been the "proof of life" the market was after.
Who would take a photo of a flare looking down the length of it? I mean...a 6m flare, or 6 foot flare look much the same down their length...what about scale...and what about a side on view?
What about a visual "industry estimate" of likely flow rates?
Also...the guy in the foreground is deceiving as it appears a telephoto lens was used?
Anyway, from my notes, here is a flare that seems comarable, although a bit smaller...
California : North Franklin Project – Archer-Whitney #1-A commercially viable well
The flow test confirmed the commercial viability of the well as a gas producer. The test consisted of the perforation of a 6.0-foot section of geologic structure known as “Winters sand” and that it was 100% gas filled and was subsequently flow tested. Over an 8-hour period, gas flowed under a four-point test to a maximum of 2.065 million cubic feet/day. At the culmination of the test, gas was flowing at 1.975 million cubic feet per day with a tubing pressure of 2,900 p.s.i on an 8/64ths choke. Casing pressure was increasing at the end of the testing period to 2,970 p.s.i.
Now here is the GDN flare...
The GDN flare seems comparible if not bigger, so perhaps close to 2.5mmcf/d?
Would appreciate the views of industry people here, who can give us an honest and factual interpretation...which means, DEFINATELY NOT SUE12!
Cheers!
GDN Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
