The main question I want to be answered is why the water wasn't detected initially. I want to know this first of all because we have received differing answers from our resident geologists as to whether this should've been detectable with the equipment used to deliver the initial interval thickness and porosity results. Looking at results from other companies (e.g. Lockyer 2), companies usually report water issues on initial results, often resulting in P&A. I also want to know this answer because, if they knew there was water there, they might've ordered a different set of components for the testing program (i.e. so they could do remediation straight away, like cement plugs, or additional testing devices ). It seems to me they were shocked by the presence of water (based on the initial results) and didn't have the equipment on-site to do the necessary follow-up work (which they now have to order).
If anyone can explain in more detail before tomorrow's meeting (@Kiwigeo8339 please?), that would be very much appreciated, also.
STX Price at posting:
20.8¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)