I have been watching RECAF from afar --- I am not yet an investor --- so, I am not up to speed on the day-to-day communications of the company, chat rooms, etc. [I am a petroleum geologist, 3+ decades of worldwide experience with exploration, production geology, reserves estimations, etc.]
FWIW ... a few points from today's PR:
[1] 3rd stratigraphic test well, 1819/8-2 ("8-2"): please note that this is a STRAT TEST. It is not an EXPLORATION WELL. Unless someone is playing fast and loose with the terminology, its' CRITICAL to understand the difference ... and the implications thereof. Here's the long and short: if it is a STRAT TEST, the drilling is NOT NECESSARILY intended to discover commercial petroleum; rather, it is primarily for TECHNICAL REASONS ... that is, for data collection and analysis thereof.
Design of the drilling program for either of these two types of wells --- and the associated COST --- generally, is vastly different than drilling the other type. IOW: when planning and drilling a strat test, you don't just change in the middle of the drilling effort, for example, to make a strat test into an exploration well. Yes, it's possible, but, unless well planned, it is rather costly and inefficient.
[2] Processing of the second phase of 761 km of 2D seismic is near completion, where early results are being used to refine drilling locations for the upcoming stratigraphic test wells: it seems here --- rather clearly --- that the upcoming wells are ALSO to be STRAT TESTS. Is this right? As mentioned above, I have not been following closely RECAF efforts, but, if someone in the industry told me they are drilling strat tests, such is pretty clear and simple: such tests are first and foremost data-collection wellbores and NOT exploration wells. [Generally, a big money difference in the planning and drilling of these.]
Note: it's NOT IMPOSSIBLE, that when a strat test is drilled, production, for example, on the ocassion of positive testing results, cannot be established; however, in the general case, such is VERY unusual.
[3] Let me take further ... my reading between the lines: if my company is drilling a HIGH GEOLOGICAL UNCERTAINTY exploration well, it is almost 100% guaranteed that we would be SETTING CASING. Doing so is quite expensive ... BUT, with casing, cemented in place, in order to conduct actual MEANINGFUL flow tests --- that is, DST's or Drill Stem Tests that are critical to determine whether any fluid flows have commercial potential --- they will NEED to be done THROUGH casing. There is simply too great of [unnecessary] risk to be doing it otherwise. More specifically, flow testing in an open well bore priduces results that are typically very ambiguous.
So, unless I'm missing a major geological-engineering factor, it would be foolish and reckless, IMO, on such a company-critical wellbore, to do any such downhole flow testing WITHOUT A CASED WELL BORE. In a situation such as this, with so many geological unknowns, I have a hard time imagining doing any testing on an OPEN HOLE; that is, on a hole that is not cased.
Note: I've read through most of the recent posts here, and, if I may be presumptuous, I'd say there seems to be a high level of misunderstanding regarding how such stratigraphic and exploration drilling efforts are conducted. I certainly don't mean to be rude --- outside of petroleum geology I'm rather ignorant on a broad range of topics --- but, my point is, if so inclined, feel free to ask me a geologic-related question ... or several. I don't have unlimited time, but, I may be able to add a useful comment or more.
Kindest regards.