IVZ - General Discussion, page-1310

Early presentations from IVZ showed outcropped Angwa reservoir with porosity of 20% and minimum permeability of 100mD.

The Upper Angwa at MK-2 has porosities of 8-10%. It would be reasonable to assume that permeability will therefore be in the 20mD-50mD range.

The Lower Angwa has been loosely stated as being better than the UA with higher average porosity in the net pay zones. Being conservative and assuming the LA is 20% better than the UA then this puts us at maybe 12% porosity in the LA and a slightly higher permeability of maybe 30mD-60mD.

The net pay is made up of a number of thin reservoir zones and lateral extensiveness is still a risk.

With reservoir pressures in the 4,500psi to 5,500psi range, what could we realistically expect from the flow test based on these parameters?

I think an upper estimate should be well below 5mmscf/d at the very best.

This flow test is going to be purely a data gathering exercise for Scott Macmillan. He has no comprehension of what a low flow rate is going to do to the share price. And he’ll be lined up with his excuse that MK-2 has not been drilled in the best location for good flow rates, but that the next well will deliver better results following 3D seismic and selection of the “sweet spot” for better reservoir quality.

Then the roller coaster ride begins all over again.

The fact that shareholders have invested so much money into the company through capital raisings to fund two very expensive exploration wells and Scott has proceeded to declare a discovery, yet we as shareholders still have no idea what the reservoir quality is like is absolutely disgraceful. We shouldn’t have to be guessing about potential flow rates. We should have enough information from the company to make an informed decision about our investment.

We don’t have to hear permeability results in mD but we are definitely entitled to know if there is a likelihood that the reservoir quality at MK-2 is tight or poor. The fact that he refuses to make any comment tells me that this is likely to be the case. This is a person who cannot restrain himself from releasing what he thinks is good news. We all saw his bizarre excitement about retrieving residual gas samples from the Pebbly Arkose. There’s no way he would stay silent on evidence of good or excellent quality reservoir at MK-2.

I’d rather he be honest and transparent, even if it is construed as disappointing news.

(Not directing this post at you btw @BigAl82956 ….it’s good to have another poster with O&G experience on board. Appreciate your input…).