CanadianSoapbox

@RazorOil @biggs_josh @ShaleTier7 Flush out fines and potential ashphaltene deposition was my guess. Relatively small volume and short injection / soak periods.

@CanadianSoapbox @biggs_josh @ShaleTier7 Very interesting, maybe trying to improve perms near wellbore

The name of the company, Headwater Exploration. It is a cutting edge high-tech firm out of the Greater Slave Area, awaiting imminent AER approval to pump steam and flue gas down the back side of their casing. Now, right now, John, the EUR on this well sits at just 130,000 barrels, and by the way, John, our analysts indicate it could go a heck of a lot higher than that. Their incremental recovery on just 5,000 cubes of steam could be upwards of a hundred thousand barrels. Does that sound good to you John?

@biggs_josh @ShaleTier7 @RazorOil OHML. No backside to pump

@ShaleTier7 So many questions.. are these open hole? Slotted liners? Wait they’re pumping down the backside? @RazorOil what’s your take?

@ShaleTier7 It’s a pretty small steam volume with a lot of water sitting there. Won’t heat a lot of oil. I wonder if they’re thinking of it almost like a near well stimulation/cleanup concept.

@CanadianSoapbox Assume they don’t wanna fuck up a boomer well and if it works in thin lower quality pay then they’re golden and is probably a more valuable proof?

Something just came across my desk, John.

@ShaleTier7 Probably the influence of their new CFO, noted AECO bear.

WOW. TOURMALINE BLINKS.

@RazorOil I was skeptic of Redford, but so far I’ve been wrong. Impressive team

@CanadianSoapbox I was thinking the same, but you choke the chamber if you go too early…

to my $CJ.TO friends, it's too early for that friends, this should be a late life strategy or like $MEG.TO did with their infills but wait !! too soon friends, sharing my NCG lecture below , much love.🫡🪒

@CANoilandgas Need to start seeing a stronger response to the polymer flood in pelican. Not a year in yet, but theyve put a lot of eggs into that basket and the pilotwells are still declining hard without a clear response.

So $HWX.TO made a fuck ton of money in Q2 Record production Record AFF Record Net Income EPS more than double from Q1 10M in working capital 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 headwaterexp.com/april-30-2026-…

@ShaleTier7 Calling YT an asset is a huge stretch. More like nationalizing a liability they should have cut loose 5 years ago.

"our assets aren't going to be nationalized" -- guy that is about to get his assets nationalized

@ShaleTier7 @ericwolf3784 I’ll agree with you on a one year basis, but emphatically disagree on a multi year. Fortunately thermal doesn’t blow its load all in one year

I'm probably more bullish volume growth than you then. I'm not saying we're at $22 structurally, I'm saying it's a part of a waterfall downwards on well pair NPV. I think it's a fair downside case when turning in line a well pair. I think basis widening is likely on the timeline the original post referenced (a team starting today seeing first oil in 2029+).

Everyone and their mother wants a small-scale thermal project, of the like ~15-20 teams looking for something like 70% have some sort of thermal ambitions. Don't get me wrong, people should want thermal projects, but seeing a lot of decks run at -$12 WCS diffs, with too-low OPEX (SCR all-in is ~$20/Bbl, which should be a good single-project target not a base-case, CJ initial lower-SOR pair just operating costs ~$16 with lower G&A than pure-play), and with pretty much unrisked 1.5MMBbl EUR (1MMBbl risked feels safe, generically), no cost inflation on facilities (there will be with all this competition), There's a LOT of heavy oil coming (Athabasca first steam at Corner in Q4 2028!!), and without a pipeline diffs probably widen, definitely not sustainable at $12/Bbl. Not even $15/Bbl. For a 35-well-pair project, turning 2 wells pairs in line per year, moving from $20MM PV10% full cycle per wait pair, to $9MM brings your full cycle project returns down from ~55-60% IRR to ~25% at $65 WTI. Lots of ways to see that walk from ~$20MM to $10MM PV per well pair (includes $5-6MM full cycle costs, so ~$25.5MM and $15.5MM PVs per well pair excluding facility-CAPEX). No worry that SK changes water use regulations (and potentially royalties) that would lift cost structure. Not sure what the point is here other than small-scale SAGD project probably start to see returns erode from a number of factors over the next 3-4 years. Doesn't apply to ones already in the works.

@ericwolf3784 @ShaleTier7 Exactly. Stucturally we’ve got $8 in transportation and $4 or so in quality. I’m fine with $12 as a functional floor but $22 implies we’re carry $10 of pipe short premium of the heavy market gets flooded out and I just don’t think that’s a reasonable long term position

@ShaleTier7 @CanadianSoapbox I understand being bearish on new pipelines but theres almost 1M bbl/d in brownfield optimizations between TMX and Mainline.

@ShaleTier7 Egress dynamics have changed. To have a sustain $22 diff we would probably need $90+ wti and government regressing back the Guilbeault era

@CanadianSoapbox I mean, ya, but $20 is bottom quartile so it's just a nudge past that. Feel like that's a fair base downside.

@RazorOil Hey man, not trying to call you out, just also trying to help out. I can assure you that the number is wrong.

@CanadianSoapbox Anyway, doing my best sharing real information as provided by AER, appreciate the feedback as I don’t want to share anything inaccurate. Seems like steam looks good as you suggested steam was incorrect. Thanks

@RazorOil You’re counting the oil from Kinosis and Long Lake but only the steam from Long Lake

@CanadianSoapbox 859677*6.29/31=174,431.236 as disclosed by AER

@RazorOil Your steam is wrong

@CanadianSoapbox On the monthly SOR looks right. 174/73

@OFS_PrivateCo @RazorOil COSL is a subsidiary of CNOOC. CNPC is petrochina

@RazorOil Petro China too via COSL.

@WadeintheYYC @ExnerPirot Cc

@CanadianSoapbox @ExnerPirot Good point. I’m sure there are is secondary recovery going on out there now

Great to see some attention to the Clearwater formation, a fantastic conventional, low cost play in Alberta. Alberta issued 1,764 drilling licenses between the start of the year and June 12, the most for a similar period since 2014. Nearly one in five permits targeted the Clearwater formation, the highest share on record. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…

@WadeintheYYC @ExnerPirot Except for the water floods

@ExnerPirot Clearwater economics are insanely good And from an ESG standpoint they use literally no water as they don’t require fracs