See if you can follow along Backer, it gets a bit tricky. The...

See if you can follow along Backer, it gets a bit tricky.

The following ASX listed Ann are in chronological order for ease of reference and begin in July 2023.

Two whole rock cores were taken within the upper portion of the reservoir at separate intervals
between 476 - 481 mMD and 505 - 508 mMD. The presence of black oil was noted in naturally
fractured limestone in both cores (see Figure 1).
Flow testing operations of Unit 1A then commenced over a gross open hole interval of 63
metres (445 - 508 mMD) with the upper packer set within the casing. Black oil flowed to surface
after a 5-hour period through a 32/64” choke, but not at a measurable rate and with a maximum
well head pressure at surface of 125 psi. The maximum well head pressure measurement has
been calculated to be the equivalent of the interval pressure supporting a column of dead oil
in the string and accounts for the low flow rate seen at the surface. A total volume of 40 barrels
of oil were recovered at surface and samples sent for laboratory analysis (see Figure 2). Initial
results indicate that the oil recovered has an API gravity of 11.7° (at standard temperature), a
typical quality for shallow oil given bacteria that removes the lighter end of the hydrocarbon
chain can exist at the temperatures there. Viscosity was 3783 cP at 50°C.
Such API and viscosity values are similar to other shallow oil fields in the northern Cuban fold
belt where more than 200 million barrels of oil has been produced over the past 20 years.
Production from these fields use a combination of various pumping methods and free flow.
Testing operations for this first and shallowest unit are now complete and results are being
evaluated. Preparation is underway to re-commence drilling the 8½” hole to the next core
point in Unit 1B at 929 mMD.








The Alameda-2 appraisal well has completed flow testing of Unit 1B in the Amistad Formation – the
last unit to be tested by this well.
Unit 1B was intersected between 649 metres and 1,039 metres TVD, approximately 78 metres up
dip and 40 metres to the south of where it was intersected by Alameda-1. The 7” casing which was
placed over Unit 1B in Alameda-2 was successfully perforated over 70 metres TVD, less than 20%
of the Net Pay interval in Unit 1B. The test was conducted over an initial 24 hour period on a variety
of choke sizes, during which a stabilised average flow rate of 1,235 bopd was measured over 12
hours on a 36/64” choke. This was followed by a shut-in period of 48 hours and a further 6 hour flow
period, during which additional samples were taken.


Note: The following Drill log is incorrect in identifying Unit 3 it is in fact Unit 1B & also note the interval quoted for future ref.


Noting the figures quoted at the Good Oil Conference in Sep 2023 refer to the ann dated 28 Aug as a ref point.


From the annual report dated Sep 2023 at which point they all must be lying because everyone signs off on the figures reported.

Activity post reporting period
Alameda-2 was spudded in June 2023
and reached total depth of 1975m on
31 July 2023. This well was focused on
logging, coring and flow testing the
Amistad 1A, 1B, 2 & 3 units.
Unit 1A recovered 11.7° API oil with
3,783 cP viscosity at surface from a
63 metre MD interval starting from
445 metres MD. Flow rates at surface
were not established but 40 barrels
of oil flowed unassisted to surface
(through a 32/64” choke), exceeding
expectations.
Unit 3 was intercepted 200 metres
up dip and 500 metres to the south
of where Alameda-1 intercepted it.
Moveable oil of a similar quality to Unit
1A was confirmed and testing indicated
the potential to flow at about 750
bopd.
The DST run on the pre-drill prognosed
Unit 2 did not demonstrate moveable
hydrocarbons to surface at the
location tested.
The Unit 1B recovered 18.7° API oil with
30 cP viscosity at surface from a 70
metre TVD perforated section – less
than 20% of the total Net Pay for Unit
1B (when incorporating fractures).
This is a higher API (thus lighter) and
considerably lower viscosity than oil
commonly produced in Cuba.
Such an improvement in oil quality is
an important factor for the value of this
oil, as is the lack of sulphur normally
present in Cuban production but
absent here.
Stabilised unassisted flow to surface
was measured at 1,235 barrels of oil per
day over 12 hours on a 36/64” choke,
peaking at 1,903 barrels of oil per day.

Analyses of performance of hundreds
of wells in the region indicate that
the flow rates observed in Unit 1B are
around the high case rates expected
for a shallow vertical well and are closer
to the average of a shallow horizontal
well through this Formation.

To date 1,500 barrels of initial test
production has been trucked to a
nearby oil storage facility which also
acts as the custody transfer sales point.
Melbana is currently working through
the work programme and budget
process with the Joint Venture and
the Cuban regulator.
Going forward Melbana aims to drill as
many wells as possible and as quickly
as possible to unlock the massive
potential of this truly world class
discovery.

Then we have the Sep Qtrly with a release date of 23/10/2023 & again the same numbers are quoted for unit 1B which was the final unit to be tested after both Unit 2 & 3..

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA (23 October 2023)

Utilising a conventional net pay cut-off of 9%, a total of 5.8 metres TVD of logged Net Pay was
assigned to the Unit 2 basal section, increasing its net Pay to 43.8 metres TVD (over a gross interval
of 161.8 metres TVD). Net Pay of 15.1 metres TVD was assigned to the Unit 3 section, increasing
Net Pay to 67.4 metres TVD (over a gross interval of 156.7 metres TVD). Wireline logs confirm the
presence of natural fractures in the lower Unit 2 and Unit 3 basal sections. Logged Net Pay for Unit
1B was 538 metres TVD (over a gross interval of 1,131 metres TVD).






Note: The ref in the Sep Qtrly has both Unit 3 & the correctly labelled Unit 1B and which was run over 70m TVD



Now look at the claimed figures in the Nov 2 update.. It is quoted as 75m and over a different total depth range?

And surely if they say it was intentionally choked back to ensure a constant rate for testing other parameters then doesn't that undermine the assertion that it only flowed 293 BOPD. ?

Early production from Unit 1B at Alameda-2 is now complete. It was run for 10 days, twice the
total duration of the Drill Stem Test conducted in this unit previously, resulting in 20 tanker
loads of oil being produced and delivered to offsite storage. The flow peaked at 1,183 barrels
of oil per day (BOPD) and was intentionally choked back to ensure a constant rate for the test
period to optimise the collection of reservoir data. The extended period of production also
provided important performance data on logistical arrangements for the transport and storage
of the oil produced.
The produced oil was sampled for Pressure Volume and Temperature (PVT) analysis and
other data obtained were of good quality and are now being analysed by the Company’s
geoscience team and consultants. The well has now been shut in and will remain so for two
times the period of this early production to gain further valuable data on the reservoir’s
characteristics by monitoring the build-up of pressure in the well. The conclusions drawn from
this analysis will be an important factor in the refinement of the development plan, including
well design and spacing, for this upper sheet reservoir.

Note: The claim here is 75m of perforations int total were open between 700-942m, where as previously it was 70m open in zones 653-700m & 746-879m TVD.. Which to me looks like the edged down by roughly 50m and included an extra 5 of perforations..

And regardless of the reason why we can't possibly claim one is right and the other wrong without confirmation.. S




Unit 1B stand alone conceptual development plan.. Hardly 20 years, in fact they seem to be claiming a possible 12000 barrels a day from Unit 1B by 2025? Thats 40 Wells worth at the claimed value which considering the time frames is a monumental task.




The last Qtrly you are referring to is this one, yes? Which is the same as the one prior & which again differs from the original and was intentionally choked back as stated prior to the test & ergo surely impacts on the figure we so readily stand behind and claim as pitiful.


In the first Lor record it is claimed that 70m was open out of a total of 180m across two zones, whilst in the second test it is quoted as 75m open out of a total of 242m between two upper and lower values TVD.

That and the fact it is announced that the well was intentionally choked back from a peak of 1183 BOPD to 293 means we have a conflicting analysis viewpoint issue.

I agree there seems to be a discrepancy hence the suggestion to let it be and have Mc Daniels assess the overall field metrics and development plan.

As a rational man you'd have to see that in this instance neither figure is without question and therefore neither should be quoted ad nauseum as being the one true number, log record or not. ?

Or have I read that wrong too? ;-)

Doubt Sonangol would be hanging around and willing to wear 70% of the costs if the damn thing was marginal, does anyone? Just asking?

gltah H8tey