Bottom of the Barrel Valuation, page-95

I fully empathise with the general feeling of devastation, especially the long term holders who have held on to everything. SE was central to the gas acceleration strategy. Depending on the final outcome for SE2 and SE3, that may obviously need to change. Perhaps a pivot to OH is now necessary. It is impossible to go through life without facing challenges. It is how we bounce back that really matters. I've had some major ones in my previous professional life when I've had to make decisions based on incomplete information, and it came down to making judgement calls that were based on drawing on my previous experiences and knowledge. Some time, they went horribly wrong with pretty major impact. I often just tried my best to provide a clear explanation of why a certain decision was taken, what went wrong, what the impact are, the proposed clean-up/damage control, and changes to minimise future repeats. Luckily for me, I wasn't shown the door every time I had one of those mishaps, or I would have had a very short career. All that being said, I do agree with the consensus that announcement was very lacking in details, even if SN was probably rushed in getting it out to the market and they are probably still trying to make sense of what has happened themselves.

Let me put it another way. Based on the petrophysical information gathered from the drilling at the time, is it a reasonable expectation for someone to have picked up on the possible water issue? There will be a polarising opinion on this. If no, then what type of employer are we to show someone the door over something that is beyond their control? If yes, then hopefully they have learned a valuable lesson and don't repeat the same mistake again, especially if this was their first major strike.

I personally can't see how anyone could have picked it up but I am not a geo expert.

618