Crawfishcity, like you I have seen no factual evidence that Paloma is a dud. Likewise I have not seen anything as yet to support the latest test being good.
Having developed a good relationship with the company I don't doubt Filberts comments that in the event of failure they will make an announcement immediately.
My personal reading is that if they have had gear failure due to pressure they would not try to rectify the matter if significant damage was done to the well bore or to the frac holes. My guess, and that is all it is, is that right now the LS test is still yet to deliver a result either way.
If the gear failure was at the LS level then a significant amount of time will be needed to extract the faulty gear, change it and replace it in the well. If the gear failure is at the top of the well it should be much quicker.
Testing then could still take a week to establish a stable flow. My guess is we could be a week to 10 days away from a good result, much sooner if its bad news.
As for the one trick pony comments, we have drill permit applications in process for Paris Valley, the water well permit at NSA pending, a 2-d seismic shoot pending for the extended area beyond NSA, prelim 3D seismic analysis for Block 120 Vietnam, to be followed by Block 105, a possible drill contract for Block 105 given they are already talking to 3 rig operators already within Vietnamese waters.
Theres plenty coming.
Its also important to bear in mind a failure of this current LS test does not mean Paloma is a failure. The Lower Antelope Shale is showing promise, the upper gas sands flowed at commercial rates with 2 more sands to be tested, the Paloma sands look productive on log data, and the Upper Antelope and Paloma sands are yet to be tested.
Certainly not a well for the impatient and I dare say its even wearing out the patient. For me its like watching paint dry. Roll on results.
NEN Price at posting:
24.0¢ Sentiment: LT Buy Disclosure: Held
