Some thoughts from a first-time poster on the implications SE2 &...

Some thoughts from a first-time poster on the implications SE2 & 3 well test results:

• Based on the map (which is dated 13/02/24, and which should therefore tied the wells) we can estimate the true vertical depths ("TVDSS") of the Top Kingia intersections in the three wells.
• At SE1, assuming (as seems very likely) a single pool across the entire Kingia, the GWC must be at a depth of at least 4617mTVDSS (52m below the Top Kingia at ~4565mTVDSS). Even this minimum case implies a significant resource in the SE1 fault block (as shown in the red colour fill on the map below)
• At SE3, gas was interpreted throughout the Kingia on logs, but following the poor test results, Strike infers that a GWC contact may have been encountered in the well. It may be that the log interpretation was incorrect (is the upper "pay block" gas bearing and the lower "pay block water bearing?), or alternatively, that the Kingia is vertically compartmentalised (with the two blocks of net sand in separate pressure systems). Under Strike’s interpretation, gas resources will still be present within the SE3 fault block (as shown by the grey colour-fill, which assumes columns extending 15-20m below the SE3 intersection), but due to the complex and generally low relief structure, resources in this fault block may be insignificant.
• At SE2, the production of (presumably small amounts?) of gas and water to the surface suggests this well may also be close to the GWC. However, a GWC 20m below the Top Kingia at around 4580m (as shown in the pink colour fill on the map) would still imply significant resources up-dip of SE2, perhaps of a similar size to the SE1 fault block.
• All of this is predicated on the accuracy of the depth map, which is in doubt given the sparse multi-vintage 2D coverage. More appraisal drilling (maybe north of SE2 and SE1) appears justified, but it might make sense to first acquire 3D seismic.