Icon's interest in 218 is irrelevant to my statement about them...

Icon's interest in 218 is irrelevant to my statement about them being the same, 218 and 855 had similar target zones and work programs so why do did you muddy the waters with this statement "And ICN's 218 was only the upper, shallower, Post Permian section", what does that have to do with the economics or viability of either tenement?

The price increase and volume is curious, I'll give you that, but as you know, and have asked many times on this forum over the years, for no logical reason that anyone on the outside can ever seem to put a finger on, the price and volumes can increase, but typically settles back to market value sooner or later.
The market value for me is 0.000 due to the rehab liability.