It's 100% up to you if you wish to deal with this through anger...

It's 100% up to you if you wish to deal with this through anger instead of logic. I can't stop you from doing that.

My thoughts are that this was never 100% "guaranteed" and there was always an element of risk, even more so once the problems in Marti were identified. For Alameda to also encounter these problems was never out of the realms of possibility: indeed, over the past week there has been discussion here as to how they would perforate Alameda and whether there would also be "mud spurt" issues in Marti. I, for one, assumed it was caking (spurt) issues caused by pressure, not a chemical-style reaction between the mud and the oil or rock, and today AP confirmed that it is likely to be this. We now know the two zones have the same things in common: presence of oil (small, tainted sample from Marti but none from Alameda - but we can assume that the API will be somewhere around 19 or higher, just from the evidence we have), pressure (Marti shut-in pressure not measured, but some data out of Alameda), and the "blockage" caused by the unknown reaction. The fact that it could block immediately after perforation is certainly interesting, and the low mud recovery also a sign. Not a geo, but it sounds - just based on those clues - that the oil has reacted with the mud when entering the well bore, and given that they have recovered samples of both (from the drill string) it will come down to science as to how to remediate this.

AP aside, this is not Sherritt's first rodeo, nor are this problems totally unique. A quick Google and you will see that these type of problems have been encounted - and resolved - before.

So to the concept that we need to "sack AP" - you cannot pin the results on AP or anyone else. Noone - the Melbana team, Skerritt, or the gaggle of experts from CUPET or Sonangol - expected this; and it would take a cruel man to crucify a person for something 100% unpredictable and out of their control. So the only other "anger" is about the messaging and announcements, which, I concede, could be better. But we look at them with the benefit of hindsight, so you need to step back and read them in context with what we - and Melbana - knew at the time. There is, of course, slight timing differences too (Cuba being 14 hours and 30 years behind Australia) which also need to be considered.

My 10 cents worth (which started today being 20 cents worth) - It ain't over till the fat lady sings. Marti and Alameda hold oil. There is no debate about that. It is most likely higher API than Amistad (based on empiracal evidence, but still yet to be confirmed). And the size and scope of Block 9 - across all sheets - is massive. It would take a very brave (read: stupid) company to walk away now, or to give up the reserve probabilities coming from those lower sheets; and nor is there a reason to at this stage.

Yes - I too am anoyed that today was not Christmas; but am certain that as time passes the company will progress with remedial work on Marti and Alameda, whilst in parrallel working on commercialising Amistad (and I am confident that CUPET want Amistad online, given the energy issues in Suba at the moment, so would not want a delay even if the company continues to put resources into the lower sheets).

Here is a buying opportunity, and we know historically that in time we will see a recovery (cautiously, IMO, back to mid-5's until Marti and Alameda are resolved).

At least, that's the way I see it.

Kit