From Rigzone yesterday: Flotek refutes study finding; Flotek says the oilfield is its biggest lab. Data points:
Background:
- Flotek apparently recently released a new study, testing its Complex nanofield Technology (CnF)
- FourWorld Capital Management LLC apparently questioned some of the results of that study, suggesting that Flotek conducts its testing in the lab and not in the field
- Flotek responded: it takes "learnings" from the lab and applies them to real-world situations around the world, from West Texas to Alberta to the Middle East
- MHA Petroleum Consultants' conducted the study in question on behalf of Flotek
- So, when reading this, MHA = the study; commissioned by Flotek
- FWC is shorthand for FourWorld Capital Management which questioned the MHA study
- CnF's effectiveness in DJ Basin wells was surveyed
- FWC says the study was flawed; FWC says two products containing CnF were omitted in the study
- OilPerm FMM-1 and FDP-S1007-11 contain CnF; omitted from the study according to FWC
- FWC says their own study included well-known factors that MHA/Flotek failed to consider: well length, operator, and location
- OilPerm FMM-1 and FDP-S1007-11 are both Halliburton products
- FWC says these two Halliburton products account for 22% of the 604 wells in FWC's data set
- Flotek apparently provided this trade name (FDP-S1007-11) to MHA for the studies in Texas conducted six months later
- FWC: "when adjusted for operator, location, and well length, we conclude the estimated impact of CnF on production cannot be distinguished from zero relative to non-CnF wells"
- interesting study results presented
- FWC says CnF usage dropped from 61% in 2014 to 19 percent in 2016
- FWC used FracFocus water volume data to determine market penetration of CnF usage in 2016 compared to 2016
- FracFocus is linked at "Data Links" at the blog
- a new player: Stephens Inc (StInc) is an independent financial services firm
- StInc notes that FWC has a short position in Flotek
- StInc suggests/says/alleges:
- FWC incorrectly considered FMM-1 and FMM-2 similar enough to be treated as the same for the study; StInc says that is not accurate
- StInc noted that one of the consulting firms used by FWC is of questionable repute
- StInc notes that a well-known consulting firm endorses CnF
- StInc suggests too many variables not considered by FWC led to faulty conclusions
- origin of CnF technology comes from using d-limonene (d-limonene) -- a solvent extracted from oranges -- for cleaning oil off a concrete garage floor
- the inventors then incorporated the technology with other additives to create a nano-droplet that could work downhole
- Flotek acquired the patent in 2000
- Flotek says the product "is used everywhere almost without exception that you may have a hydraulic fracturing technology" (sic)
- near the end of the article, it sounds as if Flotek migrated to CnF for its efficacy as well as the opportunity that it could provide a way to differentiate itself from other downhole technologies
- obviously this is about money, investments, etc
- that does not interest me at all; I have never invested in any of the companies mentioned in this story and have no plans to do so
- what interested me: CnF, FracFocus, completion techniques -- but nothing about investment strategies
- a similar story some years ago when I posted a note about SlickWater -- obscure at the time, and I had no idea why I posted it except I thought it might be of interest over time
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.