more interest in central australia , page-7

"JH is gone, but it is important to know why he did what he did. The result was a depressed SP, and that is a fact. But why he did it can only be reached by deductive reasoning."

defplayer, you know that it is NOT a fact. You cannot isolate the SP to one thing, and ignore all the other factors going on. No one can predict exactly when a SP will rise or fall - otherwise the share market wouldn't exist.

So, at Suprise 1 they found oil.
JH wanted to drill another well immediately, to use the rig that was sitting there. (We pid $6000 a day for that rig for a month before the board made the decision not to continue using it, did you know that?).
Meanwhile the board wanted to go more slowly, to do 3D before doing anything else.

They are merely different points of view. Some have suggested that the board deliberately planned to go slow so that they could give a good look to their friends in the industry before a success registered on the share price.
You seem to be suggesting that JH didn't want the size proven up because of his nefarious plans.

What about the simplest of solutions, that doesn't involve insinuating that one group or another engaged in criminal acts? That they simply disagreed which way to progress, because there is more than one option?

I believe JH when he has said that he wanted to drill a second well so that he could attempt a better horizontal leg. This would, he hoped, improve the flow, allowing for better results. Dalton tried to explain to me last week about the technical reason of why the leg was cut short on Surprise 1, but we were interupted before he could explain it to this layman. He too wanted the opportunity to drill a full length horizontal.

JH's belief in a second well was very strong, because he wanted to get as high a flow rate as possible for the EPT, to help shareholders and the company.

The board disagreed. They wanted to do the full 3D et al before continuing. Is that the right call? Well it seems according to the votes of most share holder, as of last week, they either don't care or agree. Fair enough.

*MY* disagreement with the board's decision was because we'd waited 11 months for a rig, I didn't want to see them release the rig once we had it. Unfortunately finances were tighter than we'd been led to believe (I know I assumed that when they hired the rig for three wells that they actually had the money to pay for it).

I still believe that a stong board should have been able to parlay the results at Surprise-1 into the finances to continue with the rig - either at surprise-2 or Mt Kitty. Again this is a matter of opinion, not a nefarious fabrication.

Experts are always going to have differing opinions. There is nothing wrong with that.

Can we please give the paranoia a rest, and actually judge on the evidence?

- Karl