It is ultimately heavily influenced by the strategic context of where they are allocating capital and their ability to envisage a commercial development. So I think this is a great opportunity for the company. We’ve inherited our share. We started at 90%. Our objective is for Petrosen to build their share so that they are an equal partner with ourselves and whoever comes in. We’d anticipate, therefore, 25% to maybe 33% shares. We’ve got work to do now on fully describing the concept that we laid out in the material, and we’ve got work to do to bring in a partner and underpin the financing. But with all of that done, this is an incredibly commercial opportunity, but it has to be done in a low-cost way that fully leverages all of the subsurface knowledge.
So that’s the essence of maybe of the difference. But I see is a huge opportunity for the company. And look, as you know, it’s not without precedent. So you’re very familiar with the Gulf of Mexico. You go back to something like Shenandoah. I think two large companies gave it up. a smaller company now has it and is now executing a very competitive scale project now. So those things many presidents in the industry of that. And I think the energy transition has simply made those differences more acute, and therefore, the opportunity is greater.
Charles Meade: That’s helpful elaboration, Andy. And if I could go back to your prepared comments, you talked about the two additional wells you’re going to drill at Jubilee and Jubilee Southeast, I just — I want to make sure I understood. So you guys were going to farm out the rig, but then you decided you’ve got these two wells. One is in Jubilee, if I understand right, one is in Jubilee, one is in Jubilee Southeast, does this lead to a higher plateau or it’s just — or were these wells just kind of more reduce the volatility around that plateau in case you have some more of these water injection. Can you kind of frame it up for us what the…
Andrew Inglis: Yes. It’s simply really around accelerated activity out of ’24 into ’23, which allows us to actually build towards the facility limit faster. So that additional water injection well is important because it allows us to address some of the water injection issues that we’ve been experiencing. And then the second well is a producer, which would come on in ’24. And then we have an ongoing drilling program on Jubilee that would build with additional producers. So ultimately now, it’s about building to the facilities limit in terms of well capacity, probably building slightly beyond the facility is limits. So we have degree of well capacity in reserve and then holding the field at that level. So we’ve accelerated some capital out of ’24 into ’23 to allow us to build towards that facility limit faster.
Operator: Our next question is from Bob Brackett with Bernstein Research. Please proceed with your question.
Bob Brackett: Good morning. Acknowledging that you don’t yet have the ground truth of the sidewall core data for Tiberius. So the wire-line porosities in-line with what you expected pre-drill? And the follow-up related is, how do I think about the capital cost of developing Tiberius given that the host is some cost and given that potentially the wellbore just on cost.
Andrew Inglis: Yes. Bob, always good questions. The porosity was absolutely in-line with expectations yes. So is, as you’re well aware, the next step then is to do the labor to actually confirm permeability rather than it be a read across in porosity and then to finalize the fluid data with viscosity arm all of that, we can then optimize the completion design. So yes, everything is in-line with what we expected. It’s in-line with analogs that are from adjacent fields. So sort of so far so good. And as I said, to — we’re moving ahead with a really cost-effective development plan with the tie back to Lucius. Neal just pick-up on the capital of that.
