Presentation - Reply to UncutYes it is ridiculous that Ante Creek and Makes have one uninspiring page. One play has ten times the production of the other. As to page 25, the information is scant. Look up the definition of this small but descriptive word.. Since they do show a land plat I looked up the location of the play and then cross referenced it to the OCG play atlas for the north east BC Montney. Two things jumped out. Firstly the vertical depth which is 4,000 metres. The average for Kawka is 2,800 metres. The second factor is the fluid type. It seems that Attachie is near the boundary of the rich gas and light gas regions so there is a risk that Attachie could be much gassier than they show on page 25. If they data on this why haven't they talked about it? Without strong supporting data from a few well tests it's presumptuous to commit to 600 million without this crucial reservoir data in hand This brings me to well costs. There are two things at play here. The first is depth. The deeper you still tge harder the rock due to compressive forces. Basically the first 2,000 metres are fast then slow down with depth. So that extra 1,200 metres will add several days of drilling. Fracs will also cost more as this additional depth will add about 3,000 psi to shatter the rock. And add to completions. The added depth will also at a minimum result in similiar declines. So at a minimum, D and C costs will be up to $ 2 million more than Kakwa. Another risk is proximity to the mountains. Basically there is a risk of horizontal forces collapsing casing On page 25 they indicate they can keep production flat with $150 million dollars. At $ 10 million per well that's 15 wells. Unless Attached is twice as productive as Kakwa this is impossible I call bs