General Thoughts, page-6116

A drillship is not the tool that is used to assess bathymetry or current patterns ahead of a drilling program. Bathymetry is determined through existing 3D seismic surveys, which already provide water depth information at the planned spud location. Ocean currents, meanwhile, are assessed through modeling based on ocean buoy data and supported by extensive regional, long-term datasets. Companies conducting Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) license this type of data as part of their report requirements—such as Chevron's EIA for their potential 10-well program (note they are only planning one firm well at this stage). Since ocean currents vary monthly, current data gathered now would reflect only immediate conditions, not future patterns. The current and bathymetric data collected by a drillship is relevant for the time of spud/drilling.

In Namibia, the EIA process is publicly accessible, so any EIA submitted for drilling in PEL87 will be available. Drilling companies do not conduct current and bathymetric investigations to secure contracts. Suggestions for additional pre-drilling work are unnecessary; Saipem is well aware of its vessel’s capabilities and does not require extra costly operations.

As for the drillship’s recent activity in PEL87, it could have been performing standard maintenance, testing, or calibrating its Dynamic Positioning (DP) and thruster systems. This is speculative, but it seems unlikely the activity was related to PEL87 itself. While I can't claim absolute certainty, I am quite confident in this assessment. For context, I’m a geoscientist with about 30 years of experience in petroleum exploration, covering technical, managerial, and operational roles both during- and post-drilling. Insights from any drilling engineers or others in the field would be welcome.

Cheers,
MDH