Ann: $15m raised to fund Well Test & Cabora Bassa Operations, page-598

This is what their revered Hot Copper posting Geo had problems with, let me explain it:

"We consider a producible accumulation to be one capable of testing a stabilized flow of hydrocarbons. Geologic risk is assessed by considering the probability that the following four independent factors of the play concept exist:
1) Presence of mature source rock (P_source)
2) Presence of reservoir rock (P_reservoir)
3) Presence of a trap (P_trap)
4) Play dynamics (P_dynamics)"

"The Probability of geologic success (P_g) is obtained by multiplying the probabilities of occurence of each of the four factors of the play concept.
P_g = P_source x P_reservoir x P_trap x P_dynamics
If any of these probability factors is zero, the probability of geologic success is zero. Geological success is defined as having a sustained, stabilized flow of hydrocarbons on test."

source: https://web.archive.org/web/19970724193506id_/http://www.geobyte.com:80/julpdf/otis.pdf Robert M. Otis and Nahum Schneidermann, July 1997, A Process for Evaluating Exploration Prospects. AAPG Bulletin V. 81 No. 7, P 1087-1109,

Note... only the flow test determines the geological success (verifying P_trap), not a sample.

Then you have a commercial risk which is essentially: "if a 20% ROR is considered a minimum for a commercial project" you can match this to a prospective resource quantity then you check the likelihood of obtaining that quantity and that will give your chance of commercial success. E.g if you need 100Mbbo for your 20% rate of return, and if the chance of extracting 100Mbbo or more was X%, then your commercial chance of success is X%. source: Robert M. Otis and Nahum Schneidermann, July 1997, A Process for Evaluating Exploration Prospects. AAPG Bulletin V. 81 No. 7, P 1087-1109.

Long story short, I believe the market understands the requirements of the geological success and commercial success criteria, unlike the self proclaimed geo experts here on the forums. Therefore, there is opportunity cost (impatience + making money elsewhere) whilst waiting for all this work to be done to officially declare it is legitimately a geological success. Also, I don't believe it will be a geological success for a variety of reasons, e.g well design, multiple interruptions to the drilling, "residual hydrocarbons" from the absence of "lateral seals" even though they are using the same lateral seals/faults as the deeper sections. Scott Macmillan, managing director of IVZ said in the webinar "...rather than having migrated through or leaked out because of some lateral seal issues" source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTYrbZFtXTU&ab_channel=InvictusEnergy The problem with that is that those lateral seals he is talking about are the same lateral seals in the Angwa on the 2d seismic, which means if those seals are bad in one location, they might be bad elsewhere on the 2D seismic in my opinion. The biggest red flag for me is that he keeps saying the subsurface is very complicated. If that is true, the seals and traps that they think they have might not actually be there when it comes to a flow test...