PAC PARTNER JULY23 REPORT, page-123

Sure - I should have been a bit clearer.

If the gas in each separate fault blocks sit on a common gas gradient, then you increase confidence in a volumetric interpretation that the fault blocks (and those in between) are connected (at least over geological time - which may be different from production time scales - ie they may baffle), such that any interpretation of fluids types and column heights etc may be shared across the structure between the two. If they don't share a common gradient, then you know for sure that the faults seal and your volumetric assessment is complicated by the fact that there are lots of separate fault blocks, and each could be filled with varying fluid types to varying levels (ie your uncertainty in the resource size and distribution is high).

As the faults look to share a lot of similarities across the bulk of the structure (NW-SE orientation, throw/displacement and timing), this interpretation of how the two fault blocks are connected can be extrapolated with more confidence away from the two penetrations. If it looks to be connected between M1 & M2, the story starts to look more rosy. This extends to not only static assessment of volumes, but also the expected dynamic behavior and how you go about developing the field. Being onshore, the impact of the field being compartmentalised is not the end of the world by any means - it just helps with your interpretation if you can demonstrate early on that the fault blocks are possibly connected.

There are going to be a lot of wells prior to development once a discovery is declared, but I believe right at this crucial part in the companies life, that this location has the best chance of increasing confidence in what is down there and giving the company the maximum valuation from potential farm-in partners.

DYOR etc