First, I would say I have been using Novi data for over 10 years and early on, before you dudes bought the company, helped to develop some of it. I see nothing in the raw data that would remotely suggest that your statement is true. I see declining well productivity, rising GOR and water going thru the roof in the Midland Basin. I like to think for myself and don't need "artificial" intelligence, or machines that you have built to process data the way YOU think that data should be processed, to achieve the results you wish.

This statement assumes Novi economics based on 2-year payouts and 25% rates of return below $60 WTI. That is ridiculous so, foul ball, strike 2.

How do you ignore engineering in a bottom up analysis of remaining potential? Or is this strictly top-down hooey based on what, modeled rock quality? Foul into the stands.

I've read the small print, most of the benches you include in your study are gassy as hell, like the Barnett and Woodford. the other benches you referenced have 30,000 HZ wells in them already (Tier 1 cores) are pressure depleted and declining like 85% in 3 years. Foul ball into the dugout.

You didn't say oil or gas or BOE; which is it? Foul ball off the umpire's face mask.

I did read your catch about these wells all being subject to interference with each other and reducing economics by 50%, which already suck below $60 WTI, foul tip off the shoe.

I assume of all these additional wells are drilled in Tier 1/2 cores and ALREADY interfering with each other, now; your plan to be able to drill so many more wells must be based on down spacing? You didn't say if that was part of the plan? Strike 3.

This doesn't make me want to opt out on meat this month in the family budget so I can buy this report.

Otherwise, you guys do great...with raw data. Well economics is a different story. For instance, you can't overlook interest on long term debt, dividend expense, and actually paying that debt back, which in the Permian is still over $200B and counting.