"Scott has told me personally that he has permeability data from...

"Scott has told me personally that he has permeability data from the routine core analysis of 3 samples at MK-1"

Of course he has

"... but doesn’t want to announce it to the market because he doesn’t believe that they are representative of the entire field. Which is a load of sh!t. "

That's what I'd tell you if I was SM. The Mk-1 cores were physically in very bad shape and considering the massive overbalanced mud system they were drilling with those cores would have been very badly invaded.

"We know that’s the case."

We = You.


"But they’re still representative of the MK-1 location."

I would disagree.

"He also has permeability data from wireline logging down-hole at MK-2. Again - refusing to disclose to market. We don’t need to know the exact mD…just a qualitative description."

The log data from Mk-2 is uncalibrated data.....if I was SM I wouldnt be releasing log interpretation results based on uncalibrated data into the public realm and then releasing calibrated results....you end up with multiple data sets in the public domain and the result is always utter chaos. Its the same reason you never send off non depth corrected log data files from the rig to town and then send off a second set of depth corrected files.

The only log that gives you a direct reading of permeability is the Magnetic Resonance log and the data it gives is in mD. Releasing a "qualitiative description" is pointless when you've got quantitative data off your tool. As Ive already noted...the current data set is uncalibrated data, including the mag res tool data.