Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Linn Energy, LLC (LINE) Message Board

  • rrb1981 rrb1981 Apr 29, 2012 8:31 PM Flag

    rlp - Decline Curves

    rlp,

    Came across this site below. Has some preliminary curves you might be interested in browsing over. Not sure how up to date they keep them, but gives you a good starting point and does seem to indicate the GW is a little lower decline than some of the shale plays (Haynesville in particular).

    http://www.haynesvilleplay.com/2009/08/chesapeake-type-curves.html

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • But the IP is much lower on GW than Haynesville. Will have to look at economics to determine which play is better.

    • 2 quick things.


      Hess does not seem too concerned about Roger's decline rate concern, do they?

      http://www.epmag.com/Production/DUO-2011-Hess-Confidently-Manufacturing-Oil-The-Bakken-Soon-Beyond_83115



      And, you might want to look at this also:

      http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USCRUHC1:IND

    • Good Morning Sand,

      But they do it all for the greater good and are always objectively honest. ;-)

    • Lots of non-issues.

      Lets see, just a few.


      The bakken oil price was falling through the floor and everyone was in some bottlenech...oh my god,.....wasn't it?

      The 2016 gas hedges really mattered in 2012.....didn't they?

      wacc really needed to be calculated...right?


      Whether it is well decline rates, or IRRs or why it was a smart move for Linn to sell Marcellus, or some other non-issue that they need to concoct into some issue,


      you should realize that they do, what they do with some purpose.


      But, please do not show this to Roger:
      http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USCRUHC1:IND

    • First things first would be bully.
      You blew the WACC because the internet did not explain how it is used.
      Then you blew acquisition profitability by using averages.
      Then you blew the assumption of acquisition dilution because you did not understand the concept of WACC and efficient market valuation.
      It is hardly productive to use you own words for no matter what you will pretend it did not happen.
      Here is the real problem. You are a would be bully. You search the internet get a general understanding and then rather than bring it up for discussion you assume you are the investment Yoda in you PJs in your Mom’s basement. I can understand your feelings of inadequacy and resulting behavior but that does not make it productive. You can and should be better than this.
      Now you insist on adding to your long list of the most basic errors with this well decline nonsense. Everyone is dealing with highly localized geology and small tight oil resources. While local formation information is very valuable no one really knows until the well is drilled and production begins.
      The analysts must get their quarter to quarter numbers correct. This means the decline rate is all important to them.
      The opportunity then for real investors is the total viable production of the well. Low cost recompletion utilizing the rapid advancements in EOR is where the value is not being included by Mr. Market. Which led you to simply dismiss what might be very nice ‘hidden’ value in the H acquisition.
      But you are so busy trying to play board PJ basement bully Yoda, you do not learn and that is a shame.

    • Never threw around any formulas whatsover. None. Zero. Zilch.

      I did mention general decline rates. You've got your panties in a knot over decline rates and you can't even explain what you are upset about.

      Another poster mentioned decline rates, which happens to be a very critical factor in drilling wells and I post a link to a site that has some preliminary decline curves and then you spout a bunch of hooey about "technology and techniques" make the "formulas" useless. It is as if you are trying to argue with me over something but you don't know what it is, but you know you want to disagree.

      Do you disagree with saying that the decline curve for the GW is around 65% in Yr 1 (plus or minus 5%)? Do you have any proof that it isn't? Linn has posted curves in their presentations before. Are they wrong too? What do you hope to prove with this battle? So what if the decline is 55% instead of 65%. The IRR improves. We are still talking about an unconventional tight sands play with a hyperbolic type decline that flattens out around year 4 or 5.

      Your hissie fit isn't going to change it. Do you have a point to prove about decline curves or not? Spit it out man, spit it out if you do.

      As for bullies, it is you who are trying to run people off the board and monopolize it. Like I said, I will post here as often as I please without concern or regard for your approval.

    • OH! So using standard formulas for new technology and techniques might not be appropriate!
      Amazing! ;-)

      • 1 Reply to norrishappy
      • You have no clue what you are talking about. Formulas? No one mentioned formulas.

        If you are referring to completion techniques, then say so. Stop being so vague and spit out what is on your mind. Do you understand drilling and completion enough to know, or are you hiding behind "technology and techniques" to sound like you know what you are talking about. Presumably you know enough to know that you aren't going to shift the decline rates much more than 10%-15% in Yr 1 even as better frac'ing, proppants, # of stages, lateral lengths and spacing are optimized...and even if you could make a dramatic shift in the decline curve, I'm not sure what you would prove other than you could improve the economics separate from commodity price changes.

        You are really grasping at straws now...let it go son. Let it go. You'll feel better in the morning if you let it go.

 
LINE
11.30-0.27(-2.33%)Mar 30 4:00 PMEDT