Test Stock 46 Share Price (TK20)

I agree with Bolgas that there is no clarity on the implications of the actual GAS THAT WAS FOUND. The RNS stated "...the upper reservoir section between 2,710m and 2,724m is interpreted to be GAS BEARING at sub-commercial volumes"....so we DID FIND GAS! As we know, Hawkeye-1 was a vertical drill going through the OUTER EDGE of the gas cap (see 3D seismic picture http://i60.tinypic.com/29kpbwz.jpg). The seismic shows that the drill was just 250m away (approx.) from the SW edge of the red 'gas contact' line. As stated in the RNS, this was in fact only 14m THICK at this point. If they had drilled into the central (sweet spot) of the gas cap (see cross section diagram http://i58.tinypic.com/11rf8r9.png), over 1km to the NE of the drill point, where the gas cap is MANY TIMES THICKER, would they still have announced "sub-commercial volumes"? This raises a big question in my mind:- What is the definition of the phrase "sub-commercial VOLUMES" in the RNS? Is it sub-commercial because at that CHOSEN DRILL POINT the gas interval was only 14m thick? (therefore small volume). The keyword here is "VOLUMES". They have not said the FOUND GAS is of poor quality. Yes, they were hoping to find oil AND gas but this drill was always about finding how far any gas from Malampaya had migrated south westwards. I just wonder if Hawkeye-1 in fact DID ACTUALLY PROVE THE GAS MIGRATION and that not finding commercial oil was simply a by-product/casualty of this exploratory endeavor? Perhaps they are secretly quite pleased with the result and never really needed the reassurance of finding a thicker gas pay by drilling through the sweet spot. As I say, perhaps they've already fulfilled their main (non-public) aim of proving gas migration from Malampaya and are now conducting a thorough analysis of the well logs. It just seems slightly strange that they've effectively written off oil (not that they cared anyway) but have remained ambiguous about the gas. Then again, perhaps I'm just clutching at straws. ;)

I agree with Bolgas that there is no clarity on the implications of the actual GAS THAT WAS FOUND. The RNS stated "...the upper reservoir section between 2,710m and 2,724m is interpreted to be GAS BEARING at sub-commercial volumes"....so we DID FIND GAS! As we know, Hawkeye-1 was a vertical drill going through the OUTER EDGE of the gas cap (see 3D seismic picture http://i58.tinypic.com/11rf8r9.png). The seismic shows that the drill was just 250m away (approx.) from the SW edge of the red 'gas contact' line. As stated in the RNS, this was in fact only 14m THICK at this point. If they had drilled into the central (sweet spot) of the gas cap (see cross section diagram http://i58.tinypic.com/11rf8r9.png), over 1km to the NE of the drill point, where the gas cap is MANY TIMES THICKER, would they still have announced "sub-commercial volumes"? This raises a big question in my mind:- What is the definition of the phrase "sub-commercial VOLUMES" in the RNS? Is it sub-commercial because at that CHOSEN DRILL POINT the gas interval was only 14m thick? (therefore small volume). The keyword here is "VOLUMES". They have not said the FOUND GAS is of poor quality. Yes, they were hoping to find oil AND gas but this drill was always about finding how far any gas from Malampaya had migrated south westwards. I just wonder if Hawkeye-1 in fact DID ACTUALLY PROVE THE GAS MIGRATION and that not finding commercial oil was simply a by-product/casualty of this exploratory endeavor? Perhaps they are secretly quite pleased with the result and never really needed the reassurance of finding a thicker gas pay by drilling through the sweet spot. As I say, perhaps they've already fulfilled their main (non-public) aim of proving gas migration from Malampaya and are now conducting a thorough analysis of the well logs. It just seems slightly strange that they've effectively written off oil (not that they cared anyway) but have remained ambiguous about the gas. Then again, perhaps I'm just clutching at straws. ;)

http://i58.tinypic.com/11rf8r9.png

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20080407/pdf/318fp2f340flnx.pdf

http://i57.tinypic.com/9fuxrc.png