Spot on, Sadly. Chis will probably say oh Im a commercial guy I was a tech guy many years back but now im commercial, and Andrew is an electrical engineer - what will he say?
My view based on their past performance, is that we will be fed motherhood words, with little or no specific, well defined, measurable, objectives. And weve been hearing these words for nearly a year now.
Its time someone put the acid on them and the bunsen burner under their comfy chairs. These guys are getting 300-500k per annum a piece to keep their aces comfortable. Its time to work for it.
Some things to consider in question time tomorrow:
Unit 1B development
- A2 was drilled and completed in Oct 2023.
- The EPT was run in Nov/Dec 2023.
- The unexplained cement behind the casing in the most permeable zone of Unit 1B was known about at that time (see diagram from Duncans preso below).
- We have been hearing that smaller rig will be contracted to drill the development wells in Unit 1B.
- Last year they told us two new pads were going to be permited for Unit 1B. wth is going on there? I see no pads anywhere on the sat feed.
- The JV partner and Regulator and Melbana spent first half of June 2024 doing what?
So where is the actual development plan for Unit 1B? I want to see
demonstrable evidence that Unit 1B development is real and not words. As a minimum, gant chart including but not limited to the following general items and the level of completion against each would help convince me they have really been at it and are serious:
- well pad prep
- workover/rehab of Unit 1A, Unit 1B, Unit 3 in Alameda 2 (Amistad 1)
- New extended pump test of Unit 1B in Amistad 1
- drilling the seven wells into Unit 1B
- tank farm construction
- pipeline construction
- funding
- crude buyer/offtake
- regulator and JV approvals for all the different items they need approvals.
If they dont have hard and fast dates, then they can tell us what targets they are working to.
the Alameda 2 (Amistad 1) drilling f-ups.
In Duncans preso to PESA, - and other company docs we heard:
1/ cement got in behind the casing
in the most productive zone of Unit 1B (see diagram below, thats the grey stuff sitting outside the casing). How the hell did that happen? when casing goes in, the calculation of how much cement is required is pretty specific and usually not enough cement goes in as there is loss to formation. What happened here? Who was watching?
2/ the company said the completion in Unit 1B was compromised by cement. How much? we don't know, the cement bond log is run after the casing goes in.
So we got 1200 odd BOPD, despite the cement being there. Imagine what we would have got if the cement was not there and the well completed as planned? What can the company tell us about the impact to the potential flow we could have got out of this?
3/ Not 100% sure, but Im thinking they may well have known about the cement impacting the productive zone before/during the AGM last year. What does this tell us?
4/ Formation damage was also cited (company info) as impacting Unit 1A and Unit 3 in this well. What does this mean? Were these learnings implemented for Alameda 3?. What are they going to do to remediate these in Alameda 2 and when?
The Alameda 3 wash up.
Its now 6 or more months since Alameda 3 was drilled.
We dont have a summary of net to gross, for Unit 1A, 1B, Unit 2, Unit 3, Alameda and Marti.
Where is the downhole lithology, correlation with Alameda 1 and Alameda 2. When will we hear about that?
We don't have their views on the role formation damage played in Marti and Alameda reservoirs.
And of course, what will they do to rehab the well and when will they do it.
Im sending these to the filter man. Have a look at the questions and if you consider these good questions, let's insist we get answers.
(20min delay)