Dana Petroleum, earning per share growth and prospective PE range 4 -6.5

FWIW
After reading all the releases the only rational conclusions are:
They have found gas and the difference in depth between the highest gas sand and the lowest is 370m i.e 1200ft. If these sands are in pressure communication (they should know if this is the case) then this is a long column and the likelihood of finding oil deeper are small..I'm not aware of too many, if any, fields with a 1200ft gas cap over oil.
If each sand constitutes an individual accumulation then there could be oil legs down the flanks of the structure, ie a series of stacked pays. The amount of 'potential' oil will depend on the individual closure of the structures and also whether the sands thicken up downdip. Of course just because there could be oil on the flanks doesn't mean to say there is. Timing of the generation of the structure is key, if this structure was only created later in the basins history then it may not have been present to trap oil, just the later gas.
Clearly this part of the basin has generated significant volumes of gas and even if the structure had been early enough to trap oil the gas would have displaced it, given the reference to 'oil shows' this might be the case.

My guess would be that they are looking at the seismic to see if they can see a phase change or other seismic attribute change down dip on the flanks that might indicate a change in hydrocarbon type above the lowest mapped closure. If so it might be worth a sidetrack..still an expensive option,(probably at least 50% of the original well cost if they can reach a target from the current location) if not I suspect they have a big gas discovery worth little unless it is very large...say 3-5 TCF plus.

Typical of the Standard to write up a completely misleading article refering to crude. Perhaps Tom should be more accurate and say it found gas, rather than hydrocarbons, as most people think of hydrocarbons and oil as interchangeable.