So why could wording and shareprice increase be so different after the IVZ versus the ADX discovery?
- Perhaps IVZ was not able to perform a good job, analysis and did not do the right conclusions, decisions. Could be true as a hint because they always had to do side tracks because at both wells they lost a part of the hole. (and from the infos we have the Geology, Mineralogy do not look like soooo complex and difficult that you must lose a part of the hole during the second well. For the first well it can be excused because it is a virgin basin. But not for the second well. I think this is a fraction of the explanation of low performing IVZ. - Perhaps (I am speculating theroretically what could be or not) SM did not tell us everything, all data what IVZ has seen in the well. Not successfull exploration companies often tend not to tell everything or tend to hide the unmasked truth to protect their share price..this would be not good. Or some african politicale games? Or perhaps IVZ is just not sure about the interpretation of the gained data. And this would be a poor performance from IVZ again (although the geologist from NZ explained in so many HC posts how difficult it is ...) Here the first point has a bad smell and the second point is just unexperienced staff etc. - Perhaps poro, perm, thickness are realy just bad.
Again it all ends up with a litmus test, the expected production flow test.
Ususally oil and gas companies check, analyse, interprete the gained data from a well and if it looks good the decision is made to do a well production test. If it is a good reservoir, as you can see now from the discoveries in Namibia offshore or what ADX has published now, if it is a real good reservoir you know immediatly already on the drilling rig when you drill the reservoir if this is worth to be tested and will deliver a good production rate. If it is a real good reservoir all oil companies hurry up to do the well test.
Contrary IVZ takes more than 2 long unacceptable quartals for planning a simple standard well test ( no sophisticated equipment directly from the research lab is needed, no rocket sience).. It is just in Africa, in Zimbabwe (yes a little bit more difficult than in Texas, I know) but it is not on Mars. So and I am speculating, why is IVZ delaying this test. Perhaps because they do not expect world class flow rates? Perhaps they hope to protect the IVZ share price with all the news from Zimbabwe now and about preparing deals before they get the disapointing test rate from Mukuyu 2? And another hopeful carrot with the 3D seismik? Possible?
As of today with the infos we got from IVZ I think that IVZ discovered a tight gas play only with some hydrocarbon condensate. The condensate could be good because it earns more money but it could become a production problem as well (condensate blocking). So I would be not surprised if we see no world class production test rate from Mukuyu 2 because the reservoir sandstones have low perm and small h. (raty sands?)
This would be not a world class discovery. But it is still possible to earn some money with a fluviatil tight sdst play in Zimbabwe. Hopefully the test shows a test rate big enough that we do not have to start a discussion if marginal economic or not. But than IVZ should start to prepare the stake holders that hydraulc fracturing units have to be sent to Zimbabwe. All just in my opinion.
(20min delay)
