RE: Re AGM5 Sep 2025 19:54
Hi Surfit, re-A1 you are correct. It was never meant for production and easier to drill another. Only one new drill required near A1 which together with A2 (which is probably the well to be tested) will form the smaller development. For unsolicited interest, I meant that they were approached as soon as they regained the licenses and did not need to go looking for partners. A3 drill did cost $56M, but that included the pilot holes and ENOG paid for testing which they didn’t go through with (still cost them though). DW thinks A1+ cost will be nearer A2 cost. As for testing, AP did acknowledge that if they had the extra cash at the time they would have tested A2. They bought into the ENOG idea of a bigger development and the rest is history. I’m not sure a tested A2 would gain any advantage re-partnering, as there is already plenty of interest. A3 gave them valuable data in re-evaluating the seismic which strengthened the data on the existing sands and lowers the risk on some prospects. My feedback re Loukos is that there is less interest onshore from outsiders compared with offshore, so offshore is the priority.
I did raise a concern of corruption in South Africa regarding the renewables and was told they are dealing with big companies and the Banks that are funding Etana have done their due diligence, so no real risk.
All were approachable and were very open. I was expecting GP’s description of the AGM before I arrived, but was pleasantly surprised. I think there is a lot going on in the background and frustrating as it is, we have to wait for the announcements, which will come in time. I agree with Surety regarding Andrew. I had a chat about bod comms and why sometimes radio silence can lead to false speculation (e.g Risanna license), which he took it on board. IMHO
On the other hand, I could have been hypnotised on the way in and I’m just waiting for someone to click their fingers and say “You’re back in the room”.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
