I've heard that CTP relies heavily on STO for information, and the slow speed of that information flow has been irritating CTP. I would not be surprised if CTP's lack of announcements is partly the result of them being left in the dark. It tells you who is really calling the shots at Mt Kitty. And shame on CTP for not doing more to rectify this situation! They are a small company and we should have received DAILY announcements of drilling progress. The shareholders deserve better than this, and more effort from the board.
Regarding your second topic... yes it is interesting. The amount of wells in all of Amadeus is tiny considering its technical success rate. The whole of basin - and not just mereenie - is important to consider, because CTP's Amadeus acreage is all ex-santos ground! They had the Amadeus basin back in the day and they dropped it, because one guy and his ego said that there was nothing there that is economic and STO are better at focusing their efforts on bigger and better things. Heh. Thats why your well number went down.
Maybe STO were right to think that at the time. Amadeus is a tight basin and requires modern techniques to exploit, especially that of horizontal drilling. (which is why I think - like you- that Johnstone West is still a keeper if you just kick off horizontally from it, and yes fraccing too may help). And as the Thevenard Island area mardie greensand oilfields discovered and developed by West Australian petroleum can teach us, horizontal/sinusoidal drilling is key to unlocking tight reservoirs because of its ability to hit multiple sweet spots that yield you good flow rates. And in the Amadeus you need the perfs over those bits that are naturally fractured!
Times have changed, and non-conventionals are leading the way, bringing Santos back to the Amadeus. I really hope that STO re-testing Mt K yields us a considerable Helium discovery (the natural gas is nice too). We all know the results given were dodgy, but 8% He is a very precise and remarkably high figure. Does anyone here have any insight into how to interpret 'bad' test results like this? Is the kind of systematic error we have here likely to result in the 8% being a gross overestimate, or perhaps an underestimate? What makes the result "bad" as opposed to "good" and what does that tell us about the values given? Apologies if this has been fleshed out somewhere else, I don't visit these boards enough. And I know I'm grabbing at straws here and we will need to be patient and wait for our results. But damn it's fun to speculate!
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
