If you take this sentence on it's own, you have no way of knowing where the drills are going:

As of July 18, we have five drills working, and we have plans to increase to as many as eight drills in the immediate future.

If their wording had been "As of July 18, we have five drills working on Hercules, and we have plans to increase this to as many as eight drills in the immediate future", then the eight would be for Hercules.

Having left out the words "on Hercules" gave them an exit if they add these drills on any properties.

I agree that it reads as though as many as 3 are going to Hercules. With this exact wording, Kodiak can later claim that they only indicated they would increase to as many as eight drills and did not state that they were for all be on Hercules.

Take this from the point of an auditor finding a risk to a company as a result of being short staffed in a specific department. If the area being audited provided the above wording in a response related to remediating the issue of the staff shortage in that specific department, their simply adding staff anywhere could be seen as having dealt with the issue. An auditor would ask that the wording that is provided in a response that would address the issue be very specific and state that the additions are for the specific department that has the risk.