Reasonable point and one I've brought up before also. Definitely...

Reasonable point and one I've brought up before also. Definitely need to be aware when ignoring non-routine costs that they are in fact that.

Management can call it what they want but the track record of such items suggests that a number of these costs should be considered more routine maintenance, even if only expected every couple of years.

The difference between lifting costs and overall cost per barrel suggests most of these costs are being capture as routine productions costs anyway. I'd like to see more transparency there. Management has flagged an increasing focus on preventative maintenance and I'd expect an increased budget to be associated.

But replacing a section/s of pipe (20 years old?) is an item I'm happy to call non-routine and I think it's a bit rich to suggest otherwise. Is there a chance we'll have another piece of plant or infrastructure fail in the next quarter? Sure. But I wouldn't be allowing 7 figures for such in a forecast.