Thanks Delux73. Increasing production by 35% due to a producing well. We knew that A#4 wasn't producing continuously and as later stated that there were actually 2 wells producing, and for this discussion am satisfied that that increased production of just 35% "could" have to have come from A#5 and the reduced production from A#4, or, from A#4 and from A#5 for a period of 4 months i.e. 35% of a year with as it turns out, the the same flow they were producing from A#4.
But, that really doesn't change my thoughts and for this discussion, let's agree despite that lack of certainty.
The point that we should be concerned about is what you said in negating what I had put forward as a reasonably logical scenario.
You said "Hahaha - cool story Gassed.
Now, from a post I put up a couple of weeks ago, The evidence points to production @A5 in Jan 2015 so there is no possibility they flowed it after the farm out deal was done so knock that on the head.
While still not conceding that there was evidence that production was from A#5, but let's say that that IS the case.
However, saying that there is no possibility they flowed it after the farm out deal was done, is IMO too sharp an interpretation of what "could" have taken place, exactly as I posted.
I've stated all along that CTR had effectively given up on being able to fully fund the Atzam project and you will see going back to 6 March 2015 that they were then in advanced negotiations to change the farm in structure to ensure that the project would be fully funded. Drilling in A#5 so far as CTR's involvement was concerned died in the hole months before when they ran out of funds to continue paying their share of A#5 while LAR were still frigging around with C18.
There is NOTHING to suggest that that drilling stopped as far as LAR were concerned!!!
OBVIOUSLY, CTR could not proceed to pay their share and consequently, CTR's interest in the A#5 well died with it. That's how oil well drilling works, everyone HAS to pay their agreed share of all costs and if they don't it is called being "drilled out".
CTR DEFINITELY had no more cash, absolutely, and had advised the market on numerous occasions that they were seeking a new j/v arrangement to enable them to retain a meaningful interest in Atzam BUT without having to pay any costs, period.
LAR would have pounced on that and while all of these negotiations were taking place, but, were not finalized and formally announced until 23 October 2015, NOTHING was stopping LAR from taking over A#5 and all they had to do, with very little expense, was to tap into C17 , or C18 (which we KNEW had flowed, but at too small a rate i.e. 105 BOD??) and while all those negotiations were taking place they had a nice (very) little earner @ 100% while CTR couldn't pay anything or come up with a plan to make any contribution. Viz. the new deal took them until 23 October 2015 to announce!! LAR could very logically have been producing from A#5 for over 12 months by then.
Until then, LAR, quite legally, could have done anything with anything in Atzam and Tortugas as long as they paid the full costs and told CTR absolutely nothing. CTR would have taken this as a real bastard's act and clearly the relationship between CTR management and LAR disintegrated, probably, irreversibly and CTR and it shareholders were left completely in the dark.
CTR management were simply out played and we paid the price for their absolute ineptitude by not having tighter control over LAR or the balls to take them on.
Now, let's see their next ann before we shut the door on this shocker.
Expand
(20min delay)