Well, I've had a look and google does provide elevation data, but unfortunately it is only accurate at known locations. The nearest location known by google is Roebuck, which is way too far from the wells to get the accuracy required. There is a variation in altitude of over 100m between Roebuck and the next nearest location (name escapes me), so this wouldn't be useful for our purposes. It is odd though: seems flat for 100s of kilometers when you're actually there.
So I guess we'll just have to wait for the company to tell us. Incidentally, whilst trawling the announcements I noticed that they were going to do an interference test between U2 and U3 to see if the wells were in communication. Did we ever get the results of this I wonder? They did say they would inform us later. Didn't mention how much later.
CEOChair, I think those isobars in your diagram are probably only 10 meters, not 100m. My understanding is that the image depicts what the reservoir would look like if we could see it, so if those bars were 100m I think we'd be sitting on a rather large oil field. 10m makes more sense to me. And looking at the image, this might mean we end up with only the reported 15m oil column in this well. If the OWC correlates to U1 and U2, this would still be pretty damn good. But we'll have to wait for that answer I'm afraid.
BRU Price at posting:
24.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
