RE: Q & A7 Apr 2021 13:46
I am reading this reply as we have found more than we thought! Mini Booooom!
Hi, With reference to the RNS of 30/01/2020. It appeared that the Springhill formation was 28 metres above where it was estimated to be. This 19 metre gross interval was found to be shallower than where thought to be. Can you please explain in layman’s terms what this might portend? I am NOT ASKING for actual numbers, more a sense of what this might mean. The original target for the CLix-1001 well was 48.9bcf (P50 mid case). RNS 19/12/2019 Given the actual location of the interval, what would the pre - drill estimate been given if the actual location of the Springhill formation was known? Not asking for actual numbers, more a ballpark estimate i.e. X 1.5, X 2.0, X 3.0 etc? Does this mean that the seismic data originally supplied for this drilling location was inaccurate? Might that have ramifications for the local or even less local area of the assets that we hold in the region? It was also said that confirmation would be the subject of future technical work. Can you please say whether this work has been partially or even completely done – given that it is 14 months since the drill was done? Said in RNS 30/01/2020
Julian Bessa (VP of Exploration)
Technical work by ourselves and the other partners is ongoing over the whole of the Palermo Aike licence and includes the Monte Aymond project that we previously announced. Whilst I cannot answer your question specifically on Campo Limite, I can answer in general technical aspects typical in exploration. With all else being equal (e.g. depth of gas/water oil/water contacts and formation thickness) if a formation does come in shallower, it may lead to a larger hydrocarbon column than would otherwise be the case. Likewise, if a formation comes in deeper, and all else is equal, this may mean that more of the formation is in the water leg and less of a hydrocarbon column. These are just general examples.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
