I love 3D. And in many situations it is the best way approach....

I love 3D. And in many situations it is the best way approach.
I'm not arguing against 3D in most situations. But I am in this situation.

There are 4 components to a commercial gas discovery in a structural trap. Source, seal, structure and reservoir.
The main reason for 3D is structural definition. This is a massive structure, and you can't miss it. So 3D is not necessary to define the structure.

In the company's own active farm out literature, they say it is a massive structure. And that there is source.
3D will only give indicators of reservoir and trap, to there is very little added value to 3D IN THIS SITUATION.

The 'apparently large target' that was missed above was NOT the target that was actually drilled.

This comment from the farm out brochure.

• “The original location, targeting the deeper Permo-Triassic play prospects, was only abandoned after the site survey required prior to drilling, failed to confirm seabed stability and mitigate the risks posed by shallow gas for use of the rig contracted.”

Means that the 'apparently large target' is referred to, was never drilled. The service company 'failed to confirm seabed stability etc' so the company had to drill a secondary target. This screw up from the service company was the subject of legal action referred to in the subsequent year.

So, I repeat,  THE PRIMARY TARGET WAS NEVER DRILLED. This structure is untested and does not need 3D as it is still massive, and untested.

I love 3D. I would drill on 3D every time.

But, in this case, where there is a massive, easy to see, untested target in a gas prone area, 3D is NOT the appropriate next step.

Also, the 3D is not actually farmed out. RL appears to be a $2 company, and it still has to get share holder approval, and raise $4M for a survey that the company in the attached brochure says is $5M.