There was a question icon, but they deferred Charlie and company future questions to listen to DW's closing statements. They quickly closed proceedings after that so no opportunity for questions.
All resolutions were passed in accordance with the BoD's guidance. Res 1 got a second strike (as more than 25% voted against). But the spill resolution was defeated so no change other than I assume "duly noted"!!??
Bit disappointing, to say the least....but the rationale provided was that there were no answers yet to many of the likely questions.
He (DW), did summarise to say that (from memory, and in no particular order):
- clearly the results were disappointing as they were not aligned to Malguk. They don't (yet) have a view as to whether the Malguk results were the issue, or whether the Charlie siting was the issue.
- that said, the Torok (unexpected) discovery was for a potentially large condensate discovery. Still determining condensate gas ratio's which will go a long way to helping determine value potential. He mentioned a range of 10,000 to 20,000 pe mmcf (I think?), but I didn't pick this up clearly. Any geo's out there may be able to assist in interpreting this for CGR purposes?
- he pumped up some potential interest in the Seebee (Lima), saying that they got some pre-drill additional insight into Lima upside potential, but it was too late to re-site or re-align the Charlie drill. Nevertheless, what they did get from Lima with LWD and with wireline logging and sidewall sampling was encouraging. He raised the possibility of a specific Seebee farm-out, pending the complete post-Charlie analysis.
- he referenced the multiple side wall coring taken of the HRZ and an approx 2 month timeframe to get those results.
- he referenced YG as being ready for farming
- he referenced the reality that, as compared to a few months ago, we have discovered a potentially large condensate reservoir in the Torok, we have furthered our knowledge of the Seebee heavy liquids potential, and we have acquired geological material to advance our HRZ sweetspot theory/analysis...all for ZERO net dollar expense (ie paid for by FO and within budget) and for ZERO acreage dilution (as FO acreage returned by PMO abandonment). Personal editorial moment: while technically true, that is a silver lining that I was hoping not to have to clutch towards.
- he referenced that our financial picture was solid enough and the quarterly to be released later today would highlight this.
- referenced the oil price and pandemic impact on sentiment and outlook and also that cost cutting was in place to reflect this. No specifics however...perhaps that will be announce soon.
- he concluded by saying that he felt that the SP reaction to Charlie results was understandable but an over reaction and he viewed that amongst the various things that he had discussed were plenty of nuggets to sustain a materially higher price over coming months. Personal editorial addendum: he would say that wouldn't he?
- he was planning a podcast soon to address Charlie and post Charlie analysis in more details, and he said that would also provide a platform for detailed questioning around the topic.
All, from my memory...and likely tinged by my prevailing mood and sentiment. Please don't take literally without DYOR. Happy to stand corrected on any factual errors.
GLTA
(20min delay)