I broadly agree with this. I just wish they'd addressed the inconsistency you pointed to in the CATF report, as it seemed to me just a simple typo that changed 0.21% to 0.71%. It would have been so simple and obvious to point out that now I'm in some doubt.
By the way I don't understand your extrapolation of well retirement capacity/costs. Half of the 174 wells Next LVL Energy retired in H1 were DEC wells, so looks to me you're double-counting them when you add the 100 DEC wells retired. From the interims: "During the first half of 2023, Next LVL Energy safely retired 174 wells in the Appalachian region, of which 87 were operated by Diversified and 87 were owned or operated by third-party companies or state plugging programmes."
"During the six months ended 30 June 2023 we retired 100 Diversified wells, inclusive of the Central Region, at an average cost of $20 to $25 thousand per well."
That says the 100 is *inclusive* of Central i.e. 100 is total DEC wells retired. 174 is total Next LVL Energy activity, including 3rd party wells. There's an overlap of 87, as evidenced in my previous comment. So it's not clear to me why you summed the two to get 274 (548 annualised) as it seems to me to involve double counting.
Hi Tom, to clarify to you how I arrived at 274 I took the 174 "Next LVL" and the 100 "DEC wells" to arrive at 274. See the graph from page 4 which is also included in this article. But I completely accept 274 is incorrect and my misinterpretation of the graph .... you are correct the 1H number should be 174 wells - which includes the 100 DEC wells (and 74 3rd party wells) and is not in addition. I've updated all articles which reference this error and thought through whether any logic is impacted in what I've written. Your observation is greatly appreciated as these articles are 100% about presenting the facts. Cheers.
I broadly agree with this. I just wish they'd addressed the inconsistency you pointed to in the CATF report, as it seemed to me just a simple typo that changed 0.21% to 0.71%. It would have been so simple and obvious to point out that now I'm in some doubt.
By the way I don't understand your extrapolation of well retirement capacity/costs. Half of the 174 wells Next LVL Energy retired in H1 were DEC wells, so looks to me you're double-counting them when you add the 100 DEC wells retired. From the interims: "During the first half of 2023, Next LVL Energy safely retired 174 wells in the Appalachian region, of which 87 were operated by Diversified and 87 were owned or operated by third-party companies or state plugging programmes."
Hi Tom that’s in Appalachia - add in the central region P&A wells and you arrive at my numbers (ie the numbers in the interim report)
"During the six months ended 30 June 2023 we retired 100 Diversified wells, inclusive of the Central Region, at an average cost of $20 to $25 thousand per well."
That says the 100 is *inclusive* of Central i.e. 100 is total DEC wells retired. 174 is total Next LVL Energy activity, including 3rd party wells. There's an overlap of 87, as evidenced in my previous comment. So it's not clear to me why you summed the two to get 274 (548 annualised) as it seems to me to involve double counting.
Hi Tom, to clarify to you how I arrived at 274 I took the 174 "Next LVL" and the 100 "DEC wells" to arrive at 274. See the graph from page 4 which is also included in this article. But I completely accept 274 is incorrect and my misinterpretation of the graph .... you are correct the 1H number should be 174 wells - which includes the 100 DEC wells (and 74 3rd party wells) and is not in addition. I've updated all articles which reference this error and thought through whether any logic is impacted in what I've written. Your observation is greatly appreciated as these articles are 100% about presenting the facts. Cheers.