Hi Bill It is hard to decode the porosity data as 88e give...

Hi Bill
It is hard to decode the porosity data as 88e give averages without specifics to which reservoir they apply, while PANR give logs with variable porosity traces, rather than averages

I am left wondering, what this from the announcement means

“Average total porosity across all zones of 9-12%, including key zones identified for potential testing in the Upper and Lower SFS with between 11-16% total porosity.”

Making assumptions they are saying zones have different porosity averages, the BFF will be lowest so call that at 9%. Then the SFSs are probably a 12% average, given the 11-16% range reported.
It all becomes pretty murky without more data, too much guesswork to be accurate, so will have to patiently wait for more information

Also note the reporting of TOTAL porosity which gives a larger number than effective porosity

I expect the laws of physics will prevail and the deeper burial depths will result in tighter rocks at Hickory.
Dmax is the critical factor (how deeply buried it has been in the past, before erosion stripped the top layers off) at an estimated 1000 additional ft