august presentation, page-6

Hi bignote,
I see that steven has answered some of the points that you raise and I haven't had time yet to really read his answers fully and check back on the info from GGP.

However, I think I can provide a quick answer to this question.:
"4. with hindsight do you think the Acosta 1 was put in the wrong location? would it not have been better at location A or B? Or was it to ascertain the southern limit of the field for reserve calculation purposes?"

What you have to recall is that GGP as the operator decided to use previous wells in the case of J #2 and Acosta #1.
If I recall correctly J #2 had previously been drilled in the 1970's (?) (under a different name?) to about 5,000' and then plugged. So to save some drilling expense GGP chose that well to re-enter and drill deeper.
The same is true of Acosta. It was drilled also some years ago to about 13,000' (may be wrong on that) and so they wanted again to save time and costs by re-entering this well and drilling down to the Miogyp. Got there but found (supposedly) that when they tried to get production that the bore had been damaged by previous earlier operation and could not get it to flow.
They still have that option of doing a sidetrack to re-enter the Miogyp if it looks suitable. Otherwise they can try their luck with the Camerina interval although they seem to be favouring doing a Camerina check at J #1 in preference.

So drill location was already there. It was not a new well exactly.