@@jctrout I hear what you're saying. Your point about finding the GWC in a permeable sandstone is the key here. They need to "see" water in the hole. That means you need to intersect a unit that is permeable enough to contain "water" at around the depth you expect the water to be present. So even if they push LD2 a bit deeper, there is no guarantee they will actually see water in the hole.
As for pushing it 200 m deeper. Its probably costing them around 100K per day for the rig, so every metre, esp at those depths, is precious and carries big risks - i.e. if you get the rods stuck and lose the drilling assembly theres $1M youre up for in lost time and tool costs. It is hard to justify going the extra depth in the off chance you may find a GWC.
The sheer scale of this thing is another point that looms large here. Because it is likely to be so big (current 2.4-3.x TCF) this makes the GWC/gas column something they can start worrying about in 10 years time. For those that listened to the min presentation...their CFO was talking about a 30 or 40 year project life (at 275 TJ/day) ...that is the kind of scale that is being considered here - it is literally almost too big to fathom - and too big to believe - initially (in Aug last year) I was thinking 2TCF would have been the max size...now were looking north of 3.
For now, they (and we) will be more than content with knowing there is no GWC at 4,300 m SS, after drilling LD-2.
now for something else....
I picked up a snippet from stx that would be of interest to everyone here.."[.Kingia] sands...show evidence of...oil/asphaltic residue, which preserve porosity at depth"
...so what's the oil residue doing in the Kingia?
NWE Price at posting:
4.7¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
