Big Ga$$$$$$$, page-463

As I've stated earlier in this thread, I'm feeling confident that Borba shouldn't be seen as the new Dempsey, for a few different reasons, 1 of which GJ has been at pains to explain.

Firstly, the shallower gas-rich zone already announced correlates to zones that have been very profitable producers in the past in areas adjacent to Borba. At Borba that zone encountered 190 feet of well logged fine to coarse unconsolidated sandstone - in nearby producers the zone was considerably thinner (1 hole intersected just 15 feet thickness but was a significant gas producer).

Secondly that zone was never identified as a significant gas-rich zone in Dempsey, thus was never involved in testing.

This shallow gas-rich zone likely extends to other ground held by SGC/XST nearby to Borba and therefore becomes a primary target for future cheaper shallower wells, opening up the potential for an even greater resource - a review of seismic information and closure analysis will provide insight to how much larger this shallow zone may contain (I'm not saying xyz Tcf potential as there's no information provided by SGC as to how much ground they hold, but it could be substantial).

Thirdly, as GJ has mentioned many times, the deeper channel sands being investigated have all the hallmarks of a different sedimentary deposition model that likely will favour a more amenable transmissivity of gas. This is contrasted with the Dempsey well that was simply sited to target the apex of the stratigraphic closure, not towards a more favourable zone based on sedimentary deposition.