"Is NOT going back to square one with the awarding of services contracts....."
Since IVZ were moving from a package deal for all services with Baker to awarding services to multiple providers they would have had to go through the tendering process all over again for _all_ services. New contracts would have had to have been worked up for all services......to me that's pretty well going back to square one.
"Moreover in one presentation SM mentioned that ..yes we had issues with service provider (Mud calibration etc..) but also that this was a wildcat drill and many other issues basically where unforeseeable, including problems that now can be corrected in advance."
I've worked exploration wells in remote areas and I've never seen a service provider drop the ball like BH did on M1. As for BH's failings being unforeseeable......from my experience there are usually obvious indicators a service contract is about to go pear shaped on the first day the service company is on site.
"If I got this right one of the main issues with BH service team was absence or malfunctioning of some logging tools..."
No mate, it was much more than just missing or malfunctioning logging tools. It was a total failure within BH that definitely extended to local base management level and IMO also extended up to middle management level within the company. In the oil patch we have a vocabulary of "special" words to concisely describe such scenarios....forum rules prevent their use in this post.
"Exalo Drill mud agitator was not working properly as well the pump etc…. In short is my understanding that the majority of issues came from the Exalo drill not been up to standard, hence been under maintenance and upgrades…"
A malfunctioning mud tank agitator isn't a show stopper. Pumps.....as I explained elsewhere pumps take a hammering and frequently need servicing or repair. SM has commented positively several times on the performance of Exalo dring M-1.
IVZ Price at posting:
12.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
