RE:Exhaustion!Oh geez Phantomblogger, now we're getting into legal stuff which I know very little about. Here's my understanding: The well results are legal documents, logs, specimens etc. For example whoever logged the well produced logs that could be used as evidence in a court proceeding. They would be crazy to produce bogus evidence. Same with cuttings/core/fluid samples, drilling operational parameters etc. All of that evidence will be 100% reliable. I don't think any company like a Schlumberger or Geoservices will "salt" the evidence like they did in the famous Bre-X scandal. Their reputation would be destroyed. Their sp would plummet.
Ok, so we have 100% reliable data points. The trick is how to interpret the data to develop a reliable geological model and resource estimate. Now don't jump all over me here people but I more or less remember that they said that at least 2 more appraisal wells will be necessary which, to me, must include flow testing the wells. Some on this board got on me saying that flow tests are not necessary for a JV/ farm down to happen. I say that they are. I'll just leave it at that.
So the question for a potential partner is whether there's enough evidence to justify to their shareholders of a high likelyhood of a commercial discovery to enter into an arrangement with the fec/cgx JV. Two appraisal wells w/ flow testing of the Maas and Camp would cost how much? $200 million maybe? So is there enough evidence there to risk spending, say, $200 million? If that gets clarified in a positive way during the presentation then this play will be appealing to investors. I sure do hope that fec's ecploration manager Regan Palsgrove handles the presentation. She was excellent in their May 2022 webinar. I don't even know if she's still there or not.