Previously we were told:
43:28, Andrew Purcell: “There’s no interruption to drill A3 next. Well’s take a while to permit up. Casing has to be bought months in advance. Drill programs have to be agreed with the regulator and drill contractors, so A3s happening next…”
Ben E: “…This is for Duncan it’s probably more related to what you saw on the flow testing, um, I’m just looking through the announcement apologies if I missed it, but have you got
any surface pressures, ahh,
shut in and flowing, I noticed you did three shut-ins, or two shut-in events after the cleanup.
Did you see the formation recharge well or?”
Duncan: “Yes we did, ah
I don’t have the actual numbers here in front of me but yes, the formation behaved in an exceptionally good manner. In addition to, the lower section in particular 1B, which we perforated which is highly fractured, the upper section of 1B actually did have good primary porosity and permeability and that was basically reflected by the way that the shut in, the well, the behaviour in the shut-in periods, with the well.
So im sorry but I don’t have those numbers conveniently at my finger tips, but suffice to say that yes it behaved very well.”
source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWsdnBJTxOM&ab_channel=InvestorStream Investor Stream Webinar Series: Melbana Energy (ASX:MAY) Investor Briefing (August 28, 2023)
A massive clue was given by the answer to Ben E's question. Essentially Ben E. was asking if it was legitimate lol... Logically sustained flow and pressure is needed for a production well.. The answer that was given to Ben E's question was very obscure (hard to tell is their definition of "very well" is legitimate without knowing the actual numbers"). I find it very hard to believe they didn't have the result for the shut-in's considering that is the whole point of the appraisal, that is literally the only result that matters lol..
Nothing is making sense to me. If I had to guess, AP might have thought production was a good idea before the AGM (instead of A3), then even if it doesn't produce as it should, they can simply say it produced "X" initially, and then the next reporting event will be the next quarterly update (where they will then be required to give us the average production/day). My theory only makes sense if they start the production on the x/10/23 to 16/11/23. Then report the real results (average rate/day) in January 2024. If my theory is correct, then this would mean we won't get any drilling results until around 31/10 or before AGM 16/11/2023. Also if my theory is correct, then this is extremely bearish (as I consider that hypothetical scenario a manufactured pump for the AGM votes).
Not good.
(20min delay)