Ann: Jaws-1 Technical Update, page-102

wouldn’t we already know the content etc from Klebb pilots that DW did ??

You're not barking up the wrong tree but you're not following the conversation properly. That's exactly what I was saying - how can SN now claim that CO2 content is an "undefined parameter" after so much production from the Klebb wells? It is SN claiming they don't know the CO2 content - not me.

Most companies in STX's position would still do Jaws if they had concerns about CO2, but not if the CO2 content was beyond hope. So if it's 30-40%, it's worth a shot (especially since you're spending other people's money ie shareholders) because that's on the cusp of viability, but if it was 80% then it's not.

If you stopped oil and gas exploration every time you had concerns that something might not be viable there would be no oil and gas industry. Every single project starts off with concerns, and usually concerns big enough to put the chance of success below 50%.

The best guess I can make about CO2 content at the Klebb/Jaws location, considering all the (sometimes contradictory) things STX has said is that the in-situ CO2 content appears to be around 40%, and the initial produced gas content appears to be in the 20-30% range as mir said. That is consistent with both the theory of mixed gas isotherms and my experience in other high CO2 plays. In terms of economics, that level of CO2 is not ideal but it's not a deal-breaker. If the wells produce enough raw gas the project can still work.