Lol... I see you running away at speed from what you originally posted.
Let's review what you originally said:
"the Upper and Lower Angwa obviously have both a working trap and seal mechanism.....or we wouldn't have been able to pull gas samples from the 8-1/2" section..." (71689998)
So what you originally said was because IVZ got a sample, you think the "upper and lower angwa obviously have both a working trap and seal mechanism". In other words, you tried to pretend that because you gained a sample, that meant the "upper and lower angwa" (whole structure) had a working trap/seal.
Incorrect... the best you can say is there was a localised accumulation, you cannot extrapolate that to the whole of the structure, only a flow test over multiple compartments can get close to making that claim.
I have never met anyone in the industry that would claim that because of a sample in an exploratory well, the seismic interpretation is accurate ("upper and lower angwa obviously have both a working trap and seal mechanism"), that is dangerous and wrong.
For example, let's look at a hypothetical, if they run an appraisal well through this "reservoir" and it fails, what do you say then? Obviously, you come back and apologise (technically you should have apologised already, to suggest the upper and lower angwa have both a working trap and seal from a sample is wrong).
Also... it's basically a cornerstone analogy "is it a flash in the pan or the real thing". Only the flow test will determine if the sample is a part of a seal/trap or not.
