Considering the #8 would appear below the OWC and the #9 is directly in line but significantly lower on the structure, I wonder if the #1 well may have been quicker to respond had Elk used the #8 well as initially proposed as opposed to #9 for water injection. Would it be better to use #8 as the injection well now???
Initially the field was expected to be unitised around march this year, I am concerned that failure to unitise the field is going to be a problem to further develop this asset when the Surtek review comes back.... Cheers
ELK Price at posting:
19.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
