Ann: Preliminary Wireline results shows Multiple Potential Zones, page-690

Easier if I post up these links rather than trying to explain show description procedures myself.

http://docs.energistics.org/WITSML/WITSML_TOPICS/WITSML-000-073-0-C-sv2000.html
https://wiki.aapg.org/Show_evaluation

A few comments about the IVZ show description in the ASX report of Nov 10th:
- it's very truncated.
- it's not specified but the description refers to a direct cut...ie the solvent is placed on intact sandstone aggregates rather than crushing the aggregates up first (this is called a crush cut). You can see in the spot dish at left in photo there are aggregates of sandstone rather than individual grains.
- the solvent is most likely isopopyl alcohol. In the old days carbon tetrachloride was used but TCE isn't a nice chemical to work with so it's no longer used. I remember being on one job where the Mudloggers were holding a safety meeting and discussing how to minimize the risk to health fro using TCE. One bright spark suggested letting the Geologist use the chemical would be the best way to minimize risk to health of the Mudlogging crew :/
- I checked the original reports and couldn't see any reference to a streaming cut...maybe I missed it
- speed of cut is missing, it's important information. A fast streaming cut is indicative of better permeability than a slow streaming cut.
- % flourescence declined from 100% to 50% over a period of hours. Indicative of light oil/condensate?
- Colour and thickness of the residual ring also indicative of light oil/condensate?


Note that my interpretation is based on sketchy information in an ASX report and a photograph. In a real life situation I'd have a lot more data available to allow better assessment of a show (eg a mudlog and LWD log).