Hi Callsign30, having invested/speculated in the Oil & gas sector for 40 years or so you pick up a few hints as to what goes on.
Ii suspect that the basic reason was after they had started shooting the 3D, there may have been evidence that the fan system was bigger than the 2D interpretation suggested, and with deep targets, it is all about geometry. In order to resolve the target and get complete coverage, you need to increase the area of the survey. There are many examples where original 3D surveys were too small, eg BHP and the Jabiru Field, and the field that was discovered extended beyond the limits of the survey and the size of the field had to be estimated at the time a development decison neede to be made. Making a development decison with this uncertainty makes management very nervous, as to make the suface facilites too big or too small will serioulsy affect the profits. if a company is lucky and can get the data before FID (Final Investment Decision) the bosses will be happy, but this is not always possible for a myriad of reasons, availability of vessels, drilling activity, weather etc and often it is preferable to re-shoot the entire survey as there may have been techology improvements that will make the new data superior, so it will signifcantly add to the development cost to have to re-shoot.
As I said earlier, the cost of regret of shooting too small an area can be huge.
PCL Price at posting:
1.9¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)