"Reality is that the logs show a semi-conventional pocket of ~1.5m section producing the gas free flow, the rest is tight gas. Most of the >10% porosity mentioned is in fact the surrounding geology and not the sandstones themselves. - i.e. the gaseous sandstones holding the gas are more dense than the gross porosity numbers suggested by NY, hence the stimulation requirement and the non-commercial conventional flows. You'd also be a chance that the stimulation hasn't gone to the sandstones either because of this density differential and it's ended up in the coals surrounding them. Post stimulation results only increased flow rates by 0.2-0.3 mmscfpd, basically 10-15%, indicating that permeability is not positively influenced by this approach. That is a real problem for commerciality as the gains are marginal for the risk. Also, density/porosity inversion shows that gross recoverable section may be <4m out of the supposed 12m gross pay section tested."
None of the petrophysical and flow rate data (e.g. increased flowrates by 0.2-0.3 mmscfpd) disclosed in your post has been reported by EXR. I doubt this is reliable information. My guess is that it ihas been released with the sole aim of down ramping this share. Even if it is reliable information, why would EXR allow you to present their field results without being released via the ASX?
EXR Price at posting:
13.0¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)
