Thank you Kiwigeo.
Have to say following the saga of MK-1, I suspect responsibilities for not getting an oil sample could be split in 3, between Exalo, Baker Hughes and IVZ management.
Some bits that broke during drilling can't be BH responsibility, otherwise why the need to refurbish our drill?!
On IVZ managing MK-1, I suppose they can't be accuse of not trying the hardest, to get the oil sample.
One could argue that before starting operation, they should have made all the necessary checks and inspections, and maybe spend a bit more cash to have ready in place all the tools, including wireline logs and replacements parts (some), just in case we where to find some gas/oil.
Then it could be mentioned the ambitious trajectory of MK-1. I understand that drill trajectories these days can be bent to greater degrees and even be horizontal, but been the first exploration drill and considering the many geological unknowns data, I wonder why risking so much, when we could have prove oil sample first and then with more data and experience be more ambitious...
In the end we are where we are.
The market as completely priced out all the information we got from MK-1, including the fact that there is movable hydrocarbons down there, and sold in a panic....
IVZ sp before MK-1 was averaging in the 20c range, with last RC for MK-1 done at much higher sp than current 12c.
I am pleased that Scott Mc. mentioned that MK-2 will be a more straight trajectory drilling and looking forward to know what Lower Angua holds, maybe oil rather than gas?
I am hoping that IVZ will go alone with MK-2 drill, for then farm out some of the license, even if PSA probably will be signed before drilling MK-2 this summer GMT.
Expand
