somebody please., page-10

Bit ironic, the northern side was caving in & the southern side of the structure is tight as. Not that it cost MEO a cent to drill, so thats the only +ve. They had factored in a 6-6.9% porosity for this field when they calc'd the midcase resource estimate of 5tcf (refer slide13 frm their Nov'10 slideshow).

Two variables will affect this resource now.

Its seems gas is there in the south, but lack of the 2 p's (ie porosity & perm) will affect their estimate.

What's bad though is the recovery factor, they reported GTS but not a flowrate. The rec factor used by them ranged between 40-75% for a low-high case scenario will drop. So they were encountered a thickish gross gas column at hS1, which is low in por/permeability & very very low recovery. Interesting the company didnt inform the mkt about the actual depth of the perforated interval (frm-to, ie).

Not sure if 'inversion' needs 2b tried or a new seis shoot to find a sweet spot over Heron.

If ENI really believe that the upper reserv had a 75:25 gas/CO2 compo & the lower had 70:30, then they need to find a sweet spot where they can flow gas rather then look at say 3-4% porosity (as an example). So who knows what happens next.

Now for Gurame.

So while we r still on the topic of permeability, the core recovered at Gurame was missing 1.04m, why, one might ask.

They usually record 100% recovery, i.e cut 13.4m, rec 13.4m. In this case they recovered only 12.36m which means that core probably had a natural fracture in it, hence the core loss.

Point is, what gas readings were recorded in that interval on the mudlogs. So would a flow b possible, who knows.

The argument against that is, frac's also act as a conduit for drilling fluid losses, so the formation needs to b in real good nick behind the liner to flow gas. This is the only +ve I could think off (ie fractured formation at Gurame).

Has been a really tough day on the mkt, wasnt quite the right trifecta of news I was after, Forrest Gump would have said better, it happens.