When you have a bit with small teeth and you drill shale, the...

When you have a bit with small teeth and you drill shale, the shale can have a smearing effect and reduce ROP.

I have written: IVZ did not report about https://petrowiki.spe.org/Glossary:Fluoroscope
and I shared my thoughts about this missing hint.

Resistivity log: SM is giving puzzling information: he says we have a tight formation, we have challenging mineralogy (what does he mean: shale or unusualy minerals difficult for the log interpretation?), and some hints about the resistivity in the invaded zone and in the uninvaded zone with the conclusion that there could be something. As I understood IVZ has got shaly sandstone in the 200 formation, perhaps some gas and probably not commercial in the Mukuyu 1 - but this is my own dodgy interpretation. And it is known that when you have a tight formation, the log interpretation can be more difficult for some reservoir parameters.

I do not like this communication : some important parts of the puzzle are missing. The question is why.

A straight bat communication would be: as a result from the logs the 200 formation has got no good reservoir parameters and is seen as subcommercial or marginal in the Mukuyu 1.

But instead we get a snippet about the resistivity log and no snippet about the fluoroscope results, no snippet about oil/gas shows, no info about the cuttings, no info about the gamma ray log and the info that the risk was too high to run WL for a downhole sample. This confuses me. Tell us the result but do not give us just one small snippet about resistivity. Or when you tell us about the snippet resisistivity, tell us about the other snippets as well. My interpretation is that SM highlighted one positive hint like the resistivity log and did not say anything about the other hints because the other data are just bad or were not collected or collected with too bad data quality.

How can he suggest to drill the 200 formation somewhere else with this uncomplete puzzle?