manipulation part 2, page-8

Epaka

I dont have crystal ball, so I cant speak too far ahead (apart frm using their 18/11/9 preso), but u r spot on abt the Spectrum analogy.

There r 3 outcomes firstup as of now, Success or failure or Inconclusive & I'll give a simplistic explanation of these.

1) Success:

Both targets r gas saturated, with decent pressure, high gas saturation (& low water, ie). A#1 meets pre-drill expectations of higher GCoS. In short, they drill A#1 at the best possible location & get the necessary results, classic textbook stuff, in which case the SP should move up b4 prft taking (remember we all like 2b reassured abt the future plans eg when will A#2 b drilled & so on).

A lot of effort has gone into the seismics modelling, so now its a matter of 'drill it & they will come'!!

2) Failure aka Water saturated sands with poor porosity/ permeability:

We need to discuss this as well as part of risk associated with drilling. As DM mentioned in his talk at the AGM, the pores in any rock will respond to whatever they contain, i.e, gas, oil, fizzy water. Should they b water wet sands then run for the hills. However, I doubt it this time around, but u never know, hence the drilling.

As SheepDog pointed out in his last post, abt PBR using RTM seismics to have a very high degree of confidence offshore Brazil (eg: Tupi) & other operators in the GOM & Nth Sea, mayb MEO have done their homework well.

3) Inconclusive:

Calypso could b better compared to Legendre sands, which gives them a single reservoir instead of 2. So this might need some justification. However, Calypso has 6.4 tcf recoverable gas compared to 5.6 tcf frm LG, so it could b a 50:50 play. Enough gas for a LNG project or they can sell this gas to a 3rd party (just like Hess did with WPL 4 weeks back).

Thats all I can think of & am glad u've brought up the 3rd outcome.