Exactly psi81. Could not agree more, even though some here may...

Exactly psi81. Could not agree more, even though some here may get hot and bothered.

Its a WE1 clone I think which is why this has not run this morning as most would have expected.

Same breakout in the hole as a result of drilling underbalanced - a classic bad sign of tight sands. Plenty of gas in WE1 too but it was P&A. Quoted porosity here may have been influenced by hole conditions - it's over a small interval. Inability to get pressure data due to rugose hole condition (if its like the WE1 logs) also calls into question the porosity. Can't have it both ways - if you can get a porosity number you are prepared to release, you can get pressure data if the sands are permeable.

For those interested, do some Googling and read up on the difference between gross and net sand as it applies to reporting hydrocarbon pay.

Can someone please tell me where this "Basal Wagina" story comes from please? Where the secondary porosity Wagina story works its in the upper part of the Wagina as at Beharra Springs. I have not looked at any of the old Perth Basin discoveries.

Nothing has changed with the POS for the Kingia as a result of all this. The quoted number is too high IMO but this is a great fantastic exploration target and still a few weeks away. The Kingia poro-perm preservation model is different to the Wagina. Porosity is low in the Wagina at Irwin-1 but reasonable in the Kingia. Fingers crossed.

GLTA