Synergia Energy Share Discussion Threads

[arlington chetwynd talbott] 18/8/2022 07:10

Is this that good news?

[bigpecs] 16/8/2022 12:10

Just need a bit of good news and a change in sentiment and hopefully up we go, I'm still holding faith in Roland and for a reasonable outcome here. Gas is hugely in demand in India as we know GLA

[ashleyjv] 16/8/2022 08:47

We are due some shortly

[bigpecs] 16/8/2022 08:43

Their loss if good news arrives tho

[geoffmanana] 16/8/2022 08:26

No news equals nervous selling.

[josephrobert] 15/8/2022 18:02

Thanks Geoff.

There's a somewhat interesting discussion between one well meaning long standing poster and RW on the other board - it's worth reading to get an idea whether it is a bona fide conversation and what, if anything can be drawn from it; clearly there is no price sensitive information there, clearly it looks genuine.

It ties in with what we know already, the company stated the well is currently showing the possibility of a farm in. Second, there may well be an increase from 0.5mmscfd for the 2 zones.

In particular it appears to set expectations that each zone in the proposed new wells in 2023 will be able to increase from the 0.25mmscfd/zone currently indicated in 2022 to 0.5mmscfd/zone. Secondly if the production test shows 0.5mmscfd from two zones and if the decline rates are satisfactory, in conjunction with another set of lessons learnt and things to do differently, it is enough to convince a farm in. 8 zones means 4mmscfd which is within the production ranges stated many times before in RNSs at lower gas prices.

Whatever the company says if the production test will show 0.5mmscfd from 2 zones it doesn't sound like a success or commercial or even a basis for development when the target was 4 times as high - after all it could be the basis of a farm in, but if it was the terms will not be as attractive as higher production figures. Any figures meaningfully less than the 2mmscfd target appears to show that the expectations of their model have not been met and they will aim to discover the reasons why so they can adapt their models for next year. If the company believes the existing flow rate provides the basis for the 2 drills in 2023 it is largely basing it on the recently increased Indian government set prices, which are at multiples to previous years which to me gives a sense of vulnerability. If the rate doesn't improve with the new production tubing etc (and we have seen in 2014 what a model can calculate the difference this can make) that shows that some of the assumptions of the model weren't valid.

The production target of 2mmscfd from 2 zones and expectations of 4-5mmcfd from the 2023 wells which presumably would have 8 or more zones each never made sense to me, i.e. if we could get 2 from 2, that appears to mean we could get 8mmscfd from 8 zones. I don't understand why a target was mentioned, and if it was why was it an exact figure, not a range, or even a far lower figure to provide a margin of safety, or in particular a prorated figure of 1-1.25mmscfd ie 4-5mmscfd/4 zones. I'm not a fan of targets as they are often based on assumptions and wishful thinking, stating publically what the target is doesn't leave a margin for error, and it rather nails the company's colours to the mast  - it sets investor expectations and if they are not met then the share price will suffer.... I almost wonder if the 2mmscfd was stated as a scaled up equivalent for 8 zones, i.e. if we get 0.5mmscfd for 2 zones that means the equivilent of 2mmscfd for 8 zones, and that means a projection of 4mmscfd in the 8 zones of 2023.

'The targeted new initial production rate from the two new re-frac zones is 2 mmsfd. A successful re-frac operation will enable the initiation of the full Cambay field development with two new horizontal and fracced wells planned for end of 2022 / Q1 2023, subject to funding. Oilex's project studies and experience from other stimulation projects result in an expectation of initial production rates of 4-5 mmscfd for new horizontal wells which will provide robust economics.'


 
I can't say that I find the company's communication on possible production figures clear as they could be. That said unless there is a problem I cannot see why the figure of 0.5mmscfd cannot improve unless the model is seriously deficient, including the stated target of 2mmscfd. Based on what we know a production test of 0.5mmscfd from 2 zones is equivilant to the 2.03 mmscfd from the 8 zones of 2014 - though the decline rates will surely be a lot better - I can't see that experts in their field would not get an improvement.

The key thing for me is to see this refrac and completion as a clear basis for the farm in, whether there needs to be some adjustments to the proposed fracs next year or not. I am pencilling in that the next RNS says the Frac water has been continued to be removed at similar rates, so 75% or more sounds good to me. The 20th day is this Thursday.

 

[geoffmanana] 14/8/2022 18:29

Joseph it's so good to have such a knowledgeable person on our thread.
Thank you for your recent posts...much appreciated.

[bigpecs] 13/8/2022 16:18

Wow thanks for the info Steve that's awesome news for us then.., onwards and upwards GLA

[steveberyl] 13/8/2022 11:58

In todays Daily Mail financial pages, Liz Truss says, "Fracking in the UK needs to be considered again" Consequently many tiddler Oil/Gas company shares were on the Must have list. Investment will come flooding into any Company involved in this, anywhere in the World.

[bigpecs] 12/8/2022 15:41

Agree gotta be in it to win it and those selling in my opinion are taking a huge risk on missing out on hopefully something very special here GLA

[steveberyl] 12/8/2022 14:14

This is one of those, "Could be a Eureka" at these prices Investors dont need to break the bank to have a nice little interest that might well pay big bucks. In it to win it.

[josephrobert] 12/8/2022 14:02

Also worth pointing out is that in ten days (29/7/22 - 10%) 50% of the Frac water has been extracted - in 2014 that took twice as long (14/7/14 - 04/8/14 - 55%) to get the same or similar result. If we reach 75% by the end of the 10 (08/08) - 20 day (18/8) that would compare very favorably to 77H in 2014 which reached that level on the 17th September 2014. That means more reservior energy to extract the gas which means greater rates of production in the test.

Remember back in 2014 they tested when the water extraction was at 88% (having previously indicated that it had to be over 90% before the test could take place).

[josephrobert] 12/8/2022 13:34

The recent updates have not mentioned any water contact

Nor clogging of the well bore perforations which would have required flushing.

Nor any difference in pressure

Or impairment in conductivity caused by proppant crushing or proppant return


Comparing this to the video by JS in 2017

from 11mins 40secs once again

...it appears to show that that lessons have been learnt which supports the last update which stated 'Initial indications are that the revised fraccing methodology employed on the C-77H re-frac operation has been effective...'

[josephrobert] 12/8/2022 13:11

My central outcome is based on the lessons being learned from 77H to help the refrac achieve the specified target production rates.

A key point for me so far was that there was no mention of a condensate or oil rate in the updates. This meant the refrac appeared to have achieved a key objective realtive to 77H in 2014.

Back in 2014 the company used the unexpected increase in poduction of liquids as a marketing tool, rather than a failure. These additional liquids were caused by 'condensate banking' - a drop of pressure in the lateral vs the reservoir which caused the gas to turn into a liquid. This meant that the reserviors energy was reduced the gas permeability and the well productivity. The production tubing they had based their model on couldn't efficiently allow the liquids and gas to reach the production tree - hence the test in December 2014 showed 2mmscfd vs the potential of 3.2mmscfd.

[josephrobert] 12/8/2022 12:33

Here are two News releases from MahaEnergy which showed the jump from the initial production rate to the tested rate:

[josephrobert] 12/8/2022 12:29

The initial rate in 2014 was recently stated as 1MMSCFD and the production test 08/12/2014 stated it was 2.03MMSCFD - with different production tubes it was estimated to be 3.2MMSCFD. Those rates were based on a 350m lateral, and had 8 fracture zones (76H was 800m, 16 fracture zones). 





Considering the mistakes made, on face value doubling the production rate amost seemed an impressive, yet uncommercial, result.

[josephrobert] 12/8/2022 12:21

The diagram shows that the well is still in the build up phase and accordingly we should expect an increase in the flow rate . Second the decline rate is someway off.

[josephrobert] 12/8/2022 12:19

This may help us understand how a typical well performs

[1sajad] 10/8/2022 10:14

The 0.5 mmscfd has now sustained for 12 days. This suggests that the fractures are creating energy. Thus far the decline rate is low. On flowback and test would expect up to 2 mmscfd from this which would prove the methodologyGAMEON

[geoffmanana] 09/8/2022 23:11

Well done Ashley.

[bigpecs] 08/8/2022 22:58

Exactly your right hence everyone's ignored him lol

[steveberyl] 08/8/2022 21:46

Check profile of flaart before taking his post on board.

3 posts, different companies all negative. A Shorter?

[flaart] 08/8/2022 20:54

Not great and more funding needed to get it to substantial production, down it goes from here.