Sleeping Giant13 Jun 2023 09:56
Can I draw everyone's attention again to the extract below from the superb "Sleeping Giant" post on Reddit. Please note GRH's comment about the lens structure NOT being separate. Read todays RNS very closely. Sit down and re-do the calculations. Oh my.....
The proof is in the pudding:
There is more in his posts, and I only provided a few examples. One last example... which I think is also very interesting and makes me wonder how much information/data he has in his desk drawers?
While I was posting the picture with a sandstone lens - above in Section 11: Net pay estimates, it reminded me of something.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to search out the original post, but for curiosity & in general:
Early last year, PRD issued an RNS talking about what they believed could be a lens sand structure or something to that effect. It was spoken about after.
The seismic analysis returned that it would be isolated and sit separately/higher than the main lower body of sands - Not continuous.
GRH posted on the BB soon after that RNS. He said he believed that the ‘lens’ structure was not separate. Or another way- The sands from MOU-1 to MOU-4 would be continuous... i.e. connecting the two wells. I believe there were a few persistent posts.
The implications of this on the potential size and volume of the structure could be significant.
PRD then released an RNS after more seismic analysis had been done, which confirmed this to be the case. Continuous lower sands. RNS below.
RNS-2021- JUL-19
"MOU-1 delivered a result that allowed us to de-risk the MOU-4 Target whilst unexpectedly validating the pre-drill seismic "bright spot", related to the presence of gas, as being attributable to the western limit of the MOU-4 Target and not an isolated target as previously interpreted above what was thought to be the pre-drill MOU-4 Target equivalent section.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
