I would have thought that the chances of SE being full of water or that there was an ineffective sea in SE were both very low
.
STX perforated WE-5 in two stages. The first below WGO's postulated .GWC. This was, I believe, done to convince themselves that there was an elevated water lens at WE-4 and that WGO's hypothesis was incorrect.. This also, verified that the connection between WE and SE was not full of water.
Now if there was an ineffective seal in SE what would stop the 6000PSI gas in WE from leaking out through SE. In my mind the only way that either hypothesis could be correct is if there is an impervious fault between WE and SE.
My two bob's worth
Ann: South Erregulla Update, page-87
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 93 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Add STX (ASX) to my watchlist
 (20min delay)
|
|||||
|
Last
20.0¢ |
Change
0.015(8.11%) |
Mkt cap ! $573.0M | |||
| Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
| 19.0¢ | 20.5¢ | 18.8¢ | $1.839M | 9.285M |
Buyers (Bids)
| No. | Vol. | Price($) |
|---|---|---|
| 15 | 1895959 | 19.5¢ |
Sellers (Offers)
| Price($) | Vol. | No. |
|---|---|---|
| 20.0¢ | 157824 | 3 |
View Market Depth
| Last trade - 16.10pm 13/09/2024 (20 minute delay) ? |
| STX (ASX) Chart |