IVZ - General Discussion, page-1055

An excellent post. I would just like to add that I believe we were misled by VOGC when he stated that out of a 900m gross interval at M-1, "a 225m thickness would not have been published if SM didn't believe it was a close approximation to the net pay thickness at M-1".

If SM has decided to publish a conservative estimate of net pay thickness in the UA (13.9m) at M-2ST, then with reference to 225m gross at M-1, it should be possible for consistency sake for Invictus to publish a conservative estimate of net pay thickness at M-1 and M-1ST.

We were also expecting thicker sands at M-2 based on the seismic interpretation, however, thicker shales appeared instead. Possibly the polarity of the seismic response was not right at the time?

Nevertheless, as there is field evidence that propellant stimulation guns and propped fracture treatments have transformed zones with marginal rock quality (6 - 9% porosity) into productive zones, I am actually quite confident of a successful outcome.