Ann: Operations Update, page-17

This announcement doesn't really add any thing to the picture, which makes it unusual.
Two facts that I see
Side wall cores have fluorescence and cut
A schedule of expected results will be released in the coming days

Having observed fluorescence, cut, mud pops and odour, it would be a mystery if the side wall cores did not show the same signs.
This needs to be considered against the other knowns from previous announcements.
http://research.iress.com.au/IDS/ol...0000FB784B336FA1E540093D250091850000&ppv=
"Oil shows were recorded over multiple intervals in the Nanushuk while drilling Merlin-1, including the primary targets."
"Fluorescence was also observed in the drilling mud (“pops” accompanied by a petroliferous odour over three of the target intervals."

The quotes above link these particular results to the three target intervals in the original plan (n20,n18,n14)
My thought process is, these 3 zones had encouraging signs, but in the fluid samples collected two were low saturation, the third was not sampled. It shows that early stage signs are not proof of success, in this case 2 of 2  have failed.
With the two zones that remain without fluid samples there remains a risk.
http://research.iress.com.au/IDS/ol...0000F375A3BB6EA1E540093D250091850000&ppv=
"Several samples were taken in zones interpreted to be less prospective on the way out of the hole, all of which contained low saturations of hydrocarbons, which will now be sent to a laboratory for testing. The presence of hydrocarbons in these zones is considered encouraging for regional prospectivity but does not constitute a discovery due to the low saturation levels."

There are plenty of gates to clear before getting to excited
Prove there is oil
Prove the feet of pay, a few feet of great oil saturated pressurised permeable reservoir is not economic to recover
Prove flow rates, with a sustained flow test. Before this all the data and assumptions are risked and subject to error.