"... finally we get to it ... so back to the original question 'what was the kick' ?"
lol.. I can't believe you wanted to get to this point of the discussion the whole time... You should have just specifically asked what the composition was to begin with, that would have saved you a lot of embarassment losing a handful of arguments. This is why you need to make your discourse more prescise.
I quoted it numerous times, here it is again, they tell you what caused the kick:
Evidence 2) "before these plans could be put into effect, however, at 3,916mMD another stronger influx of hydrocarbons into the wellbore made it necessary to shut in the well whilst a higher mud weight was built up. After consulting with our partners and the regulators, it was agreed that calling total depth on the Alameda-1 well was the necessary and prudent course of action to take to maintain agreed safety margins to preserve the interval thus far encountered." (source: 17 Mar 2022, ASX:MAY, Total depth called for Alameda-1https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02500364-3A589978)
Evidence 3) "Strong oil shows with free oil and gas were encountered at surface within the drilling mud system almost immediately and these shows continued until 3,769 mMD when a higher pressure zone was encountered, resulting in an influx of hydrocarbons into the wellbore presenting as strong oil shows on the shakers." (source: 17 Mar 2022, ASX:MAY, Total depth called for Alameda-1https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02500364-3A589978)
The composition was likely made up of what was being flared at the time in combination with the oil that was shown on the shakers these are called "hydrocarbons" as you can see in the quoted ASX announcements above (which I have linked inumerable amount of times now, I'm not sure how you missed it, I highlighted them for you).
When pictures of gas were being flared in the lower sheets during Alameda-1 it excited the market and consequently the share price. Why? because gas has a positive association with light oil.
For example: "Petroleum is believed to be unstable in the earth, decomposing to lighter hydrocarbons at temperatures> 150°C." and then "The existence or nonexistence of oil in the deep subsurface may not depend on the thermal stability of hydrocarbons as currently thought. The critical factor could be the presence of transition metal catalysts which destabilize hydrocarbons and promote their decomposition to natural gas." source: Mango, F., Hightower, J., & , (1997). The catalytic decomposition of petroleum into natural gas. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 61(24), 5347-5350. In other words, the presence of catalysts are what you would be looking for it you wanted to try to make the argument that the oil/gas ratio is high/low. If there are low amounts of catalysts, this could very well be a light oil reservoir as the shakers allude to:
"so how was a sample taken maybe in an A-1 upper-zone"
When you don't have a high pressure kick that forces a well closure, then there are multiple ways to take a sample, the most obvious way in exploration is a downhole pressure and fluid sampling tool (which requires tripping, that is why you don't do it when you are trying to stabilise a well).
(20min delay)