@ammie They are different but mine was a very relative...

@ammie They are different but mine was a very relative statement. So.. Yes, I agree that you can't say because one is successful or unsuccessful that means the other one will be too. They will have their own local differences. Mukuyu will even have it's own local intra-prospect differences between faulted compartments. But the statement was relative to not having ANY drills in the basin at all and essentially working with outcrops. Drilling Mukuyu should provide some clues for Baobab because they will likely share some characteristics to some extent.

Like.. The 200 horizon in Mukuyu, ie the first prospective formation seems to be one of the main targets at Baobab. Now.. It might be leaky at Mukuyu and full at Baobab or the other way around or both or neither but there will generally be some information that might be relevant. Like, generally, sealing formations tend to thin on basin margins so depending on what we see from the sealing formation at Mukuyu we might be able to make rough extrapolations at Baobab for that (but the overall seal at Mukuyu might be fault dependent as well so it's more complex than whether the trap has maintained it's integrity).

So the point is, as much as they are different, they are still next to each other in the basin and I assume that Baobab was chosen at least in part (a tiny part) due to it's proximity for this very reason.