They are seeing a fluvial /channel belt system so it is not like...

They are seeing a fluvial /channel belt system so it is not like huge sand layers that are easy to correlate between wells as will be the case in the LA where we have massive sands. So it's possible that at MK2 location we were more in the centre of the channel that had the liquid shows but then moving towards MK2ST the channel may have thinned out so wasn't directly correlatable or was rattier sand. It is too early to know until the geologist / geophysics / petrophysics do a synthesis and bring a story together about the depositional environment and where our wells sit in it. Identify which sands are connected and where, sweet spots for each reservoir unit, etc. It seems the 14m of net we declared today has a great deal of upside in the UA. And then we have the LA where my expectations are now much much higher.

People need to keep in mind the geological setting now for the UA is different to the LA. In the UA we could drill in one spot and have 15m net and another spot 250m away and have 50m of net. The 3D seismic calibrated to the wells we have will take us far in identifying where the sweet spots are. The LA on the other hand will be easier to understand and eventually develop in my opinion... especially if we have overpressure. Should be the focus for us and new primary target.