Let's go back to basics:
(1) On 24th September 2020 Melbana noted that Alameda-1 was to target the same structure drilled in the late 1980s by CUPET (Cuba's National Oil Company) with a well they called Marti-5, which itself was a follow up to Marti-1 and Marti-2 - both of which recorded oil shows. Marti-5 recorded oil shows over an 850 metre gross interval and recovered lighter oil (24 API) than is typically found in Cuba. Melbana also noted that in the early 2000s CUPET revisited the Marti-2 and Marti-5 wellsites and found them to be leaking oil. A sample was taken from Marti-5 which was found to be 32 API. A second sample taken from Marti-5 before CUPET plugged both wells was reported to be ~38 API. For reference please see https://www.melbana.com/site/PDF/e4eb29fa-6789-460c-875a-0452ed278dea/Block9CommencementofDrillingPreparations
(2) On 1st August 2022 Melbana noted that the Marti structure was initially encountered in 1988 by the Marti-5 well which recovered 24 API oil from a normally pressured section. Alameda-1 was drilled into the same section offset by about 1km to the south and also encountered oil buy in a high pressure interval. Therefore, the Marti objective is dividded into Unit-1, the normally pressured section intersected by Marti-5, and Unit 2, the high-pressure section intersected by Alameda-1. The two units appear to be seperated by a fault identified on seismic data. For reference please see https://www.melbana.com/site/cpfile/42737e9b-fdfd-4867-9cf6-c95e02fb4e95/Alameda1-Independent-Resources-Assessment-Marti-Reservoir.pdf
These first two observations - by the company - indicate that (a) there is oil in the Marti structure, (b) that there are two intervals in Marti, seperated by a fault, (c) that the two intervals are pressured differently (one "normal", and one "high", according to the company), and (d) that the API levels in Marti are somewhere between 24 (recovered oil, 1988) and 38 (oil sample pre P&A, c2000). A reaonable person, using the information published by the company would assume that Alameda-3 - which is targeting the high pressure interval - would result in oil of an API ranging from 24 to 38. An unreasonable person would try to argue that the API is lower than the oil recovered from the upper units intersected in the Amistad interval. But they try.
(3) On 28th August 2023 Melbana announced the successful flow test of lighter oil to surface (their words, not mine). They noted that he 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. They then noted that initial laboratory results indicated an API of 19 and a lower viscosity (30 cP) than oil recovered elsewhere in the Amistad interval. Further, they noted that the oil was "of a higher quality and should be suitable for refining". For reference, please see https://www.melbana.com/site/cpfile/1eba366a-e239-467b-b76d-9ccf533f7644/Alameda2-Successful-Flow-Test-of-Lighter-Oil-to-Surface.pdf
(4) On 25th March 2024 Melbana reported the results of the independent assessment done by McDaniel & Associcates of Unit 1B, which is one of four oil bearing units (collectively referred to as Amistad, and differentiated into Unit 1A, Unit 1B, Unit 2 and Unit 3). They noted that McDaniel had been asked to prioritise its assessment of Unit 1B "given it had the highest quality oil that flowed unassisted to surface". McDaniel further differentiated the Unit 1B resource categories into Contingent and Prospective Resource categories for the eastern and western portions of the structure (reflecting different confidence levels assigned to each). The eastern portion close to the well bore was assigned a higher confidence level and now has the categorisation of Contingent Resource (Development Pending) and an associated 80% Chance ot Development. For reference, please see https://www.melbana.com/site/cpfile/3c8a4e29-1258-42e2-a694-53838a77998e/Block9MaidenContingentResources.pdf
These last two observations ((3) and (4) above) elude to a high chance of commercialisation for the upper sheets of Amistad (Units 1A, 1B, 2 and 3). Further, no updated assessment has been provided by McDaniels on 1A, 2 and 3, and no timeline has been provided to the market as to when this update is expected. Based on the previous upgrade to Unit 1B, a resonable person would expect that the other units of Amistad would also be subject to some upgrading, although the extent is not known.
Now. For that person who thinks that it is incorrect to state that Marti (the lower sheet) would not have an API higher than Amistad (the upper sheets):
Amistad (Units 1A, 1B, 2 and 3) - API (per company's own results) = 19
Marti structure (two intervals) - API (per company's published research) = 24, 32 and 38 (let's say 24, as that was the confirmed number from Marti-5)
24 > 19
So to imply that someone saying that Marti has higher API than Amistad is "ramping" simply demonstrates a lack of understanding and lack of research. Equally, it indicates that the person claiming that 19 > 24 has some alterior motive to trying to discredit other posters, discredit the company, and pour a heap of muck on Melbana's efforts in Cuba.
For anyone bothering to read this - It should provide you with a large Red Flag, and make you question the other "facts" being posted in HotCopper. My recommendation is do your own research (DYOR), rely on the information posted by the company, and ignore the vast quantity of rubbish posted on chat sites. Posters who simply post questions (and not answers) are merely trying to undermine confidence, and add zero value to any argument. The information they give you is worth exactly what you paid for it.
Enjoy your day.
IMO - Buy, Hold, Patience, and Ignore the Noise. Not that difficult really.
Best regards
Kit.
(20min delay)
