RE:RE:210 to 40…. Dell,
How do you they fu*k up net pay calculations to go from 210 ft of hydrocarbon sands to now only 40ft?
yes, I will admit they didn't explicitly say "net" sands.... but common, they mentioned 210 ft in the late June release. In that news release, it was also mentionrd "sands" directly in the header. What criteria were they using in June on all three reservoir zones to define oil/hydrocarbon bearing "sands" and how is it possible that they now have close to 170 ft less total hydrocarbon sands (or in this case "net" pay) in the Santonian? That's a massive screw up on so many levels.... and at the very least, a tremendously misleading headline. Especially when leading up to Wei-1 spud, this explicity outlined in their online presentations how the Santonian was supposed to be thicker and more continuous than within Kawa-1. Based on this news release, we now have 36ft less total net pay in Wei compared to Kawa-1. Something is seriously flawed here.
To think, we waiting 4 months for this POS news release. Even worse, they are now bragging about how great the Maastrichtian is... the bloody thing is only 13 ft (4m) in thickness!!! That's literally nothing in offshore exploration.
maybe this is why Paul Langlois is no longer with CGX? He was the senior exploration manager... something is incredibly fishy here. Maybe they (our POS management) have known this revised pay news since august and we're hoping to get rid of him before releasing this negative news in mid November? Either way, he oversaw the news release and technical work leading up to the June news release... he should be held accountable for this massive nonsense. Wish to hell one could press crinimal charges more misleading headlines.
Helps explain IMO why CGX gave away more WI now... they didn't have a crown jewel in the Santonian and Frontera knew this. Would shock me if they have had this information since early summer either.