seismic interp and salt rivers

Tt4p and Wentworth have been giving some useful and constructive input - great to see.
Still worth adding some further context, based on all the mentions of the seismic interp – which is where my issue lies.
Here is the record of the Leadville target taken from GDN’s anns.

When spudded, top of Leadville was forecast for 4,100m (13,500’).
Stratigraphy stayed more or less on track to 20Oct, when well hit Barker Creek at ~3,355m (~11,006’) vs original forecast 3,292m. So far, so good. Seismic interp ok, top of Leadville forecast at 4,178m (13,706’).

Drilled into the dolomite/shales/salt of Cane Ck Fm and on 3 Nov initial revision of top of Leadville was 4,084m (13,500’). Seismic interp still ok?

5 days later and 607’ deeper, hole was well into the interpreted Leadville and just hitting more salt. Top of Leadville now revised to 1,000’ (336m) deeper – seismic interp now looking shaky. What had been the original interpretation of the seismic features now being called the top of the Leadville? Salt does nasty things to seismic responses……

For info, this is the pattern of announcements since spud for the interpreted depth of the top of the Leadville:

4100m – 4054 – 4145 – 4178 – 4084 – 4237 – 4420 – 4465 – 4472 – 4663 – 4709 – 4741m

The well actually hit the top of the Leadville at 4,747m (15, 573’) which is 2,073’ (647m) deeper than forecast based on the original seismic interp.

Based on this info from the hole, can we really rely on the schematic seismic cross-sections that t4p so diligently tracked down?

Real interest from here would appear to be the testing of the Alkali Gulch and other shows higher up the hole.

Good luck everyone – too scary for me (but I enjoy reading the threads as posters find some great sites for general sector info).

DYOR.