article in eureka report , page-16

A lot of the content in this report is fair enough IMO.

A couple of key points the author made though, was completly inaccurate. First one was where he claims that Kronos should produce better results than P2 because it is closer to the P1 discovery. Wrong, P2 was 6klm downdip from P1 on the outer flank of the formation, Kronos is 20klm from P1. Second point was he claims P2 was a failure, as it didnt encounter the gas bearing sands found in P1. I would think that this statement might not be well researched either.
Didnt the company say they achieved what they set out to on P2, plus the bonus of montara sands. And didnt they get a flow. I wouldnt call that a failure.