Impact of SE, page-12

Thanks for posting, Rick.

I'm a donkey, but even I can see why Stuart says 3D is perhaps no longer required to validate prospects identified with 2D. A quick glance at the 2D v 3D graphics he uses clearly shows the same structures identified in both. What Stuart is saying, in essence, is that there is now a sufficient body of evidence to suggest that a 2D target in these structures can be pursued with confidence without incurring the extra time and expense of shooting extensive 3D.

To suggest, as does one of our 'shareholders' (who constantly bags and obfuscates), that SE has a five per cent COS is clearly nonsense.

I hasten to add I have not 'ticked off' on a discovery at SE: Got burned once before when an 80 per cent COS target proved to be a duster. Risk remains ... but certainly not at the 95 per cent level.

OOO