n.b. reposted following reported post due to the expressed...

n.b. reposted following reported post due to the expressed personal opinions on New Seaclem-1.

Some good questions gypsy5.

1. The Company historically stated that the drilling could not occur at its preferred location over the primary structure in PEP11 due to an inability to determine the shallow gas risk at that location during the pre-drilling site survey. However, some geologists and drillers have verbally offered different opinions.
Yes, the resultant court case against Fugro saw considerable time and resources expended by the Company.

In fairness, the PEP11 title would more likely than not have been cancelled had a well not been drilled at that time.

Advances in 3D seismic technology are such that it has been used for a number of years to provide an interpretation of the shallow geology for geohazard identification and well construction purposes etc.

2. The planned farmout to RL Energy will be available to be voted on by Shareholders very soon. This transaction should be considered separately to the current board spill motion. There will be time constraints on the proposed 3D seismic acquisition to ensure delays to progress and activity are prevented as far as possible. Keen readers will note that an international marketing agency has already been engaged to assist in attracting major international drilling support. This could occur regardless of the 3D seismic, though the Company strongly believes that attracting a quality drilling partner will necessitate a confidence-inspiring 3D data set.

2a. At current market capitalisation of the Company (~$6m), funding an exploration well of ~$25 million would require massive dilution for existing shareholders through either share issue or asset level dilution. Alternate drilling funding methodologies that tomfontaine has stated or implied in his communications include attracting industry gas consumers to take the risk on the exploration well. This isn't a new concept to the Company, and the former MD was unsuccessful in achieving this despite significant attempts. It is logical to most that the probability of success of an exploration well needs to be greater than a minimum threshold before risk-averse entities would participate. We can't rework existing data (2D has already been reprocessed) to magically de-risk the probability of success of an exploration well. New data acquisition a la 3D seismic to the rescue!

stocksearch's post in another thread advised that, as demonstration of limited dilution to MEC Shareholders to fund an exploration well, his concept was that MEC Resources may only be one of the companies to fund Advent in drilling the next exploration well on his flawed scenario of 'drill now'. The only other entities involved in a material way in Advent Energy are BPH Energy and Grandbridge. BPH Energy is trading at the lowest possible price on ASX and Grandbridge has been suspended from trading since June last year!!

3. We shouldn't speculate on future share price. However, with new data generation and improved confidence around resource potential of PEP11 then it appears rational that the asset will be perceived to hold greater value.