pre nr - it's coming, page-71

Exactly Fidosnos. For once you are using your thinking cap as opposed to making baseless slights.

It is all just a futile post-mortem now, because the results are out. But it was a matter of what was the likelihood that AOC would find a distinct and isolated trap adjacent to the larger field, as per the ideas in the paper you quote. All this was covered in depth on this forum. The geology of the larger field to the north is fairly simple with Eocene aged sediments in an anticline plunging to the SE with gentle dips to the east and west, containing an oil reserviour, which was discovered in the 19th Century.

The paper you refer to quotes Cretaceous faulting adding complexity to the stratigraphy and fluid migration providing for unfound traps, but that structural influence is older than what AOC were looking at if, in AOC's case they were actually looking at something contigious with the larger field - i.e. the same sands. IMO, the nearby wells suggested that AOC's well may in fact be contigious. We were told that AOC thought they were onto something separate but in the absence of any technical information to be guided otherwise, caution lay in assessing the only available information at the time.

If Fidosnos you think I am saying they didn't have good data, some expert assessment and a decent strategy then you are not reading me clearly. The point is there is risk, and having blind faith in speccies is often just a gamble.


Fidosnos wrote:

"Assuming a 20 mmbls reserve, AOC's share amounts to >6 million barrels with projected revenues of $480 millions. Assuming production depletion over 10 years and 40% net margin they stand to make a net of $20 million per year. Using a $5 million equity and 20% yield gives me a share valuation of $2."


Now that you know that isn't likely to happen, why are you still in this and why do you pester anybody who suggested that perhaps that might not happen in the first place?