I would like to hear from Invictus the reason why the M-2 well location did not actually contain thicker sands compared to the M-1 region. The initial geophysical data (direct hydrocarbon indicators) apparently indicated a high probability of intersecting thick sands, however, they actually discovered thicker shales and thinner sands in M-2. Are we to conclude that the seismic data was misinterpreted? What reasons can be provided?
Prior to collecting samples from M-2, we were aware that a 163m thick shale had been discovered (unexpected), but it seems we were kept in the dark for quite a long while regarding the thickness of individual sands in the UA. In addition, I imagine most of us had the mistaken impression there would be thick sands in the LA (supposed to be a Massive Sand member), and it took until a few days following retrieval of fluid samples from the UA for the truth to be uncovered. A 25% drop on share price just before Christmas was not appreciated.
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- IVZ
- Phone conversation with Scott - Jan 12th 2023.
Phone conversation with Scott - Jan 12th 2023., page-188
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 357 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Add IVZ (ASX) to my watchlist
(20min delay)
|
|||||
Last
6.8¢ |
Change
0.001(1.49%) |
Mkt cap ! $96.41M |
Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
6.7¢ | 6.9¢ | 6.7¢ | $34.82K | 512.0K |
Buyers (Bids)
No. | Vol. | Price($) |
---|---|---|
2 | 150899 | 6.8¢ |
Sellers (Offers)
Price($) | Vol. | No. |
---|---|---|
6.9¢ | 131225 | 1 |
View Market Depth
No. | Vol. | Price($) |
---|---|---|
2 | 150899 | 0.068 |
1 | 150000 | 0.067 |
6 | 376496 | 0.066 |
5 | 893384 | 0.065 |
1 | 100999 | 0.064 |
Price($) | Vol. | No. |
---|---|---|
0.069 | 131225 | 1 |
0.070 | 494994 | 5 |
0.071 | 370417 | 2 |
0.072 | 550000 | 2 |
0.073 | 460000 | 3 |
Last trade - 16.10pm 12/07/2024 (20 minute delay) ? |
Featured News
IVZ (ASX) Chart |