Ann: Investor Webinar Presentation, page-232

Geos (i.e Errol) always want 3D because it generally gives you more certainty as to the shape/number of structures, which allows them to provide more certainty re size of potential oil/gas field. Management (i.e AP) understand this but sometimes feel that as they have 80% of the answer already (from existing 2D, may still be good coverage - I don't know as I haven't seen a map showing 2D coverage) and rather prove the concept (i.e oil/gas field exists and flows) before spending millions of dollars on a 3D survey.

If one of the zones flows at economic rates, a 3D is a no-brainer because everyone involved is happy to spend a few million given that they just made a lot more than that. So I wouldn't be reading too much into AP pausing at the thought of a 3D. Apologies if you already know this, just explaining the dynamic to those who don't.

Re Zapato, I'm not sure if we already have the answer to why they stopped (apologies if we have already established that), but my thinking was that they did not have a good handle on how thick that hard layer was (very common for frontier areas due to lack of nearby info). As such, a combination of:
- daily rig cost (not sure how much, but I know it's never cheap)
- hard rock causing very slow drilling rate
- uncertainty as to thickness of hard unit therefore not sure if drilling will take another day or another month

may have caused the JV to determine it's not worth continuing at this stage, but could justify coming back once oil/gas is proven nearby (i.e Alameda).

For example, rig cost @ $50k (made up number) for 2 more days of drilling = $100k. But rig cost for 1 more month of drilling, $50k x 30 days = $1.5M! Sometimes JV partners have tight budgets, maybe they just couldn't afford to go any further?

But I don't blame Errol/AP for not knowing, because 2D seismic data resolution is only accurate to at best +/- 20 to 30m.

Hopefully something in this rant is of use.

TL;DR wouldn't read into AP not wanting 3D so soon.