I think its quitelikely that I was not the only one to misinterpret the announcementyou just linked as the core being double what was expected. See highlightsbelow.
Even proactive made the same assumption. See snip of their recent youtube videodescription.
As Helios pointed out, the actual difference between actual and historical data was more like 20 % better. I wonder how the market would have reacted if the actual depth from OHM-2 had been 20-50% less than the historical data (which could have happened if we had drilled the historical hole, and the actual hole we drilled was the historical data). Could this happen with OHM-1?
Anyway... at the end of the day, I personally think this is a small point. I personally believe inthe company and am optimistic about the legitimacy of the historical data cross the asset. I amprobably over invested - hence why I am attempting to identifyany/all areas of risk (no matter how small). Cheers.
