Let's talk and the other barrier to pcts amazing EOR solution and particularly why it hasn't had any impact on share price.
We've covered the credibility issue.
We've covered why oil price is meaningless to pctl share price.
Now let's talk real world implication. The cost of implementing.
EOR is nothing new. Many of pcts potential clients are already heavily invested in one solution or the other. It costs a lot of money to implement and maintain these solutions. In other words, many of these producers are pot committed to the solution they already implemented. The cost associated with ripping those solutions out and replacing them is significant.
Then there's the cost of pcts solution. Not just the generators, but the rigs they require, and the cost of diesel generators and the fuel they require to generate electricity, not to mention the infrastructure required to deliver the energy from the generators to the wells. Running diesel generators around the clock is expensive. Very expensive. 100 gallons of diesel fuel costs roughly $400. Assuming 100 gallons a day, that's a cost of roughly 140k a year, per generator. A small to medium sized producer operating in remote areas is looking at multiple diesel generators. Just to power the pct solution.
With pct being mum on the actual cost of ownership, it's no wonder there isn't much interest from a share price standpoint. And with every level costs at what I just outlined, it's no wonder pct is being mum on the actual cost of ownership. And that doesn't even take the costs of relocating and moving equipment around, the additional staff required to implement and maintain, or the actual cost of maintenance into consideration.
Bottom line, no one knows if pcts solution works, or even if it does work as we're being led to believe, what it actually costs to get those results, which means no one can do any ROI analysis, and in guessing if they did, the amount they might get from it is negligible when you factor the cost of replacing their current solution with pcts.
Another consideration to think about is, if Holcomb solution is so great, even in its own, why isn't it being adopted by producers even without pcts involvement? See having a patent is great, but having a patented product that people actuality use is even better. Much better in fact. And without that, people might keep an eye on it, but they're certainly in no rush to get it. So one really has to wonder why hasn't Holcomb been able to sell his product without pct? It's supposedly effective without pct products, just more so with it. So why hasn't anyone started using it without the pct equation? Just more things that make you go hmmmm.
