how come 300% more than expected?, page-62

Addressing the original thread title
"how come 300% more than expected ?"

Its academic but perhaps Johns maths is a little rusty or enthusiastic...

expected thickness was 40

confirmed thickness was 120 now 130

80 would be 100% thicker than 40

120 would be 200% thicker than 40

130 would be 220% thicker than 40

quote below

"Electric log analysis completed subsequent to the Companys last announcement on 26 February 2010 has confirmed the presence of 130m of coal (in seams > 1m thick), ie 10m thicker than previously reported.
This more accurate assessment, which removes any miscalculation resulting from core losses or other wellsite issues, shows that the coals encountered were 325% thicker than the maximum anticipated pre-spud thickness of up to 40m."

Typo?
Is my maths rusty ?
I make 325% to be a thickness of 170m