As I recall, our former management's explanation for the reduced flow-rate from Daydream-2, and the consequent tanking of the share price, was because of the disruptive influence of equipment having to temporarily relocate to another well and the formation damage that resulted from the disruption. I don't recall any acknowledgment that maybe we stuffed up operationally. Now however a new set of eyes sees it a little differently:
"Avoidable"; "manual adjustments made to the . . equipment . . caused formation damage"; "avoidable adjustments to the testing spread"; "lack of timely remediation". It doesn't make good reading when you think of what that well cost us, in terms of both the operating capital and the share price.
(20min delay)