RE: 4x9xBThanks for the comments.
My inflection for the question(s) related to the ability to link any reserves or resources associated with future exploration work that Husky or others may be undertaking on the new land leases to the current IFR/Partnered lands. So you provided your understanding that IFR was not a partner to Husky for the June land purchase. I agree Husky is the sole lessee at this time.
This is may be important on four fronts:
1) any new discoveries by Husky on the newly allocated lands should not be immediately projected to IFR; if anything the discovery location and orientation would need to be prorated on trap size, geology and orientation;
2) as the current play understanding are largely structural traps, the ability to project the traps onto the IFR lease area is significantly diminished. What is shown on the IFR presentation in terms of the size of the pay trap is likely based on geophysical interpretation as the current pay area is largely undelineated by drilling;
3) Unless Husky finds a major resource on the new land leases; it's unlikely that the amount of information the market hears about the exploration work/find will be significant.....the find would have to be material to Husky. This is offset by the need to announce the work commiment expenditures and whether a SDL is announced to secure the lease for the long term future; and
4) The cash needed to support the two IFR lease holdings won't be onerous as Husky will focus on fulfilling the work commitments on the new leases.
The comments about the Bakken are taken under consideration.
Clearly my questions and comments were focused on how to value any news about CMV exploration on the current IFR lease allocations. Your opinions are appreciated.
Regards,