I would like to hear from Invictus the reason why the M-2 well location did not actually contain thicker sands compared to the M-1 region. The initial geophysical data (direct hydrocarbon indicators) apparently indicated a high probability of intersecting thick sands, however, they actually discovered thicker shales and thinner sands in M-2. Are we to conclude that the seismic data was misinterpreted? What reasons can be provided?
Prior to collecting samples from M-2, we were aware that a 163m thick shale had been discovered (unexpected), but it seems we were kept in the dark for quite a long while regarding the thickness of individual sands in the UA. In addition, I imagine most of us had the mistaken impression there would be thick sands in the LA (supposed to be a Massive Sand member), and it took until a few days following retrieval of fluid samples from the UA for the truth to be uncovered. A 25% drop on share price just before Christmas was not appreciated.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
