Is it Good or / Bad The market always chooses "bad" in times of vagueness, and maybe rightly so. But does it necessarily mean bad?
Looking at the released information; they say there is 40% more pay zone, Gross 32 meters (close to 100 ft of pay zone) It is also intersected higher up in formation. Does this mean , this well is more centrally located on the same trap? Is it expected to produce more? From some of my drilling manager friends, I have found out that the old image of first hearing a rumble and then seconds later you're swimming in a sea of oil; that's Hollywood schtick. Today's sofisticated stimulating techniques have developed such previously low-producing formations as the Bakken in the central plains of North America.
If it is 40% more formation, could it als be that there is potential for the well to produce 40% more.? It's interesting that the reference is "stimulation to the oil bearing zone " potential that is being focus, because last time the Market didn't like gas. If the 40% is directly proptionate the corresponding product would be 4730 bbls of oil equiv. But if the Oil flow tests at higher production level, it would be a better result even if the gross overall productiion is lower. A 40% increase in oil would place the expected test at 2500 bbls/per day.
It's not necessarily the case, but should be considered, and questions should be directed to the Company for direct answers.