RE: Let us assume18 Feb 2023 10:04
Have to admit a better presented argument SIV.
But one word you keep using regarding 16-2 is "prolific", I don't recall CH ever using that term with regards to 16-2. We've known for a long time it's likely to be an economicly viable production well that will contribute nicely in our portfolio. We also know its the proof of concept that it can be done in the paradox. We've now done it again, in my memory for the first time 36-2 has been suggested it could be but not stated as prolific due to the natural fracture network. Splitting hairs perhaps but important non the less to understand that 16-2 is likely to be highly economic still despite not being an prolific oil well. Its a well that will produce some oil, some condensate and lots of gas. I'm not going to comment any further on the choke, rate constrained, salt until we've had the next production test results. If the new surface infrastructure has handled that then its a non issue.
I do agree communications could be handled far better and the main reason the share price is not reacting positively is due to unknowns, some of which could be cleared up easily as you state.