I have been meaning to post this discussion for some time - and am finally getting around to doing it.

Using the Haynesville Shale as an example, we have all seen posts that take information / reports from groups like ENVERUS, RBN, NOVI, Rystad and other "analyses groups" talking about things like remaining high-quality lateral locations, areas for optimum development, remaining O&G reserves, future economics and other reports dealing with O&G activities and efforts. 

• Often with the focus on "what's expected in the future?"

My issue with all these groups and their reports is pretty simple - All these results and conclusions are based on the analyses of what has already been done by O&G operators.

These analytical groups are not incorporating any subsurface technical information into their efforts.

• No rock work, petrophysics, mapping of oil & gas in place, information as to frac barriers, laterals being in zone or out of zone, cement bond quality in production casing, failed fracs, subtle changes in frac materials and pumping pressures, details and to landing / target zones, brittleness vs ductility variation, thermal maturity / TOC content / source rock quality, presence of faulting in areas of Hz drilling, seismic data, geological hazards, etc.

In short, all the information that O&G operators utilize to optimize their planned drilling and completion efforts.

• As well as utilize to determine possible new target zones / horizons, play extensions as well as "tweak" existing drilling / completion programs in attempts to improve results (EUR's and Economics).

The "analyses groups" are just that - after the fact analysts who are grinding well results without the benefit of any of the specific details that are needed to truly understand any unconventional or conventional play concept.

• Their work is equivalent - in my mind - to an autopsy of what has already been done.
• But lacking 100% of the details to effectively consider what could happen in the future.

A prime example (one of many I could post) are analyses of the Western Haynesville Trend (Comstock / Mitsui, Adamas, Expand et al). 

• First off, this trend is really more of a Bossier trend then it is Haynesville. 
• Anyone who has worked the data and looked at the historical well logs would agree with that.
• Secondly, this thick (up to 5000' thick) gross Bossier / Haynesville section has the potential for multiple, stacked Hz benches
• Similar to the Permian Basin but with all the lateral options being in the same formation - just spread out across a thick gross interval
• Comstock has already proven up stacked laterals in the Western Trend

But one never sees this posted by the "analyses groups" since they aren't looking at the lateral / target zones in detail

• Basically, doing the G&G and Engineering work that O&G operators are doing 24/7 and past, present & future.

These "analyses groups" are only doing studies in a vacuum - looking at results without incorporating all the technical information that is pertinent to obtaining these results.

Another thing to keep in mind are the backgrounds of the workers / analysts in these groups as well as the management / leadership driving these analytical efforts.

• When checking resumes' 'and backgrounds, I rarely if at all find any of these analytical workers that have any experience in downstream O&G operations. Or even a technical degree (e.g., geology, geophysics, engineering, drilling).
• These non-technical directors and advisors are managing groups of non-technical analysts (supplemented by AI algorithms and programs) that are NOT incorporating the key info pertinent to any O&G play.

I won't single out any one "analysis group" or individual directly, but following are some excerpts from the Linked In profiles of these "experts":

• Energy Research Associate - Business Commerce degrees, less than 3-4 years' experience out of college
• Technical Advisor - Geology degree but zero experience in any unconventional or conventional O&G play / focus on data mining/, analytics
• VP of Customer Success - Education in computer science and civil engineering / zero G&G - O&G background but leading manager in one of these "analyses groups"
• Managing Director - Geology degree (BS) but zero experience in downstream O&G operations/ 100% of work experience in "analytics"
• Research Director - downstream experience only in directional drilling and then followed by analyses and investment related job assignments

The list goes on and on.

• All this info is available in the public record

These are the people putting out reports on "remaining inventory" and other conclusions without incorporating the technical information that the O&G operators are using on a daily basis.

• And I am assuming that the "worker bees" doing the analyses have similar or lessor background in O&G operations and efforts

My bottom line on this post is "Readers Beware". What is being published by these groups is not the "bottom line" as to what is really happening.

• It is just a snapshot of results based on high level analytics done in a "technical vacuum"

PS Note - I have similar feeling about many of the authors who write about O&G efforts. Their general lack of any scientific work or educational background results in many of their stories to be misleading, incorrect and improperly skewed in one or more directions.