Excellent announcement. And to think there is still Mahongany,...

Excellent announcement. And to think there is still Mahongany, Machabel, Musuma, Mopane and Mukwa that have not been assessed due to not enough seismic data.

Regarding the COS, I love this stuff and was very interested in one of the interviews when SM mentioned that ERCE were using additional metrics than the typical 4 to determine the COS.
Its nice that they included the full table in the announcement so we can see exactly what's going on (table 2)

They use a slightly modified version of the typical 4 which I've mentioned before on the prospect risk (see below for my previous post), however they double up the Source, reservoir and seal risk as a play risk as no confirmed presence in the region. This really hurts the end COS and as soon as a working system is confirmed (fingers crossed) the COS regarding pure prospects jumps to 35%





"I'm by no means a Geologist however, my understanding of the 4 typical elements is; Source Rock (material from which hydrocarbons form), Migration (whether these hydrocarbon can migrate out of the source rock - Oil seep that we have found shows yes), Reservoir (Porous rock or open fractures present to contain the seeping hydrocarbon) and Trap (how good a seal the reservoir has - no good if it all seeps to the surface)Say if we are 75% sure of each element. when multiplied together we get COS (0.75 * 0.75 * 0.75 * 0.75 = 31.6% COS)The 7 that EREC use would be an expansion on this, is my guess. Any additional measurable added would only make the COS less unless its 100% proven. Even 99% lowers the COS. "