@Linebacker11"the question - 'what was the kick' " (71981013)...

@Linebacker11
"the question - 'what was the kick' " (71981013) "Flam's only near answer so far something like 'never said it was all oil' " (71981013)

Incorrect, the actual answers include (almost all of which were in the original post (71827203)):

• "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)
• "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)
• "paused after encountering a high pressure zone resulting in an influx of hydrocarbons into the wellbore and subsequent strong oil shows on the shakers." (source: 9 Mar 2022, ASX:MAY, Alameda-1 Hydrocarbon influx into wellborehttps://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02497170-3A589426)
• "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' " (71954058)

As soon as you changed the question to "what was the kick" I knew you wanted pressures, but the problem was, you worded it in such a way that you ignored the fact there were multiple kicks amongst other things, so I assumed you were not asking for that (combined with the fact no company reports that stuff, and it may be intellectual property). Ever since my original post I showed you multiple examples of kicks in the Alameda-1 well. It should have been "what were the kicks" (plural). If that is indeed what you want, and you wanted me to show you mathematically ρ_p - ρ_m = D_cs/D_v (ρ_f - ρ_m) - L_k/D_v (ρ_m- ρ_k), in other words, KI = ^ρpore - ^ρmud (kick tolerance) then wow...

1. first of all, that is illegal (other companies could simply use the intellectual property [e.g "technical innovation"] if they ever drilled in or around block 9 without paying for it, if we were to discuss these parameters on a public forum)
2. secondly, which part of the ASX continous disclosures for ASX companies require them to post this? The answer is none.
3. thirdly, what the actual heck... none of this needs to be known in order to see that the pore pressure was enough to cause an influx of hydrocarbons into the well bore and subsequently on the shakers... unbelievable that I have to spell this out to you.

In other words, for at least half of this debate you have been goading me into doing something illegal (if I do indeed have the pressures), and this is something that is not required to prove a kick occurred.

"what was the sample [~15-API] that MAY reported 02 Nov 2021 ?"
Is this the same story? You want something equivalent to a PVT lab report, are you serious? Once again, need I explain why this is 1) irrelevant, and 2) illegal.

Here is a summary of the debate in consecutive order for those watching, notice the complete lack of response to any of my posts:

	Linebacker11's points	The mains points of Flambeau's rebuttals	Linebacker11's response:
1	"... good post ... though maybe about 2 years too late" (71822847)	Was not late literally (thanked by Kingkev) or figuratively. (71827203)	zero response.
2	"... wait ... what !! ... " (71822889) in the context of their being enough oil in the rock to be visually detected	"it makes it more likely there is an occurrence of 1) source rock, (the hydrocarbons had to come from somewhere, usually from source rock) 2) reservoir rock, (more likely to be reservoir rock if hydrocarbons are present) thereby lowering geologic risk." "Pg= Psourcex Preservoirx Ptrapx Pdynamics"	zero response.
3	"...Wrong ! - this is 'not' a 'kick'" (71841486)	I pointed out this was a stráwmán and a play on words/semantics. I gave clear examples of a kick and highlighted them, before he wrote this post. (71827203) For example: "paused after encountering a high pressure zone resulting in an influx of hydrocarbons into the wellbore and subsequent strong oil shows on the shakers." (source: 9 Mar 2022, ASX:MAY, Alameda-1 Hydrocarbon influx into wellbore) (71844823)	zero response.
4	"you clearly do not understand what a 'kick' is ..." (71841486)	I provided the examples yet again. (71844823) Provided proof that these examples from Alameda-1 fit the definition of a kick. (71902091)	zero response.
5	"try looking at the ~40m TD question and work back from there" (71841486) and "again start with maybe the ~40m TD question and work back ..." (71910547)	Reminded him (by linking a post which he quoted of mine, for this exact issue) that I was the one that wrote a bearish analysis pointing this out in detail. Then also responded with: "I believe the real reason they are drilling 40m above the TD is because 1) oil / water contact, 2) well control (as the company said in the webinar)" (71923414)	zero response
6	" 'was the kick dangerous & if so why and how ?" 71893586	Provided a definition of a kick. An explanation from the literature of why any kick is dangerous. An explanation of how they occur. An explanation of how they are dangerous. (71902091)	zero response.
7	"try posting-up my initial few 5/7 posts on the MAY threads around 18/24 months ago" (71893586)	An unreasonable request, and possibly a waste of time if the wrong post is selected, asked him to restate the argument. (71902091) "Which post? Be specific, you have no issue quoting posts, so I find it strange you don't just quote these 18month old arguments if you think they are so relevant? If I attempt to refute them, I have no doubt you will tell me I picked the wrong post" (71923414)	zero response.
8	"was there maybe a significant amount of oil in the shakers ? ... answer a simple Yes or No ..."	Yes. Why is it significant? It adds to the evidence of the presence of reservoir rock (Preservoir), the possibility of the presence of a trap (Ptrap), the possibility it is at the right time for migration (Pdynamics) and the oil had to come from somewhere (Psource). Therefore this provides evidence pointing to an increased likelihood of a successful appraisal test. (71923414) Also said it was significant operationally especially if it was enough to "shut in the well" (71827203)	zero response.
9	"that's a bit different to what Flambeau may have posted" in regards to a ChatGPT summary of what I (Flambeau) wrote.	provided examples of how the ChatGPT summary was literally saying exactly what I wrote (because it is a summary of what I wrote.... sigh...) (71923414)	zero response.
10	"you don't get to think or perceive what maybe posted" (71933500)	Yes I do. If someone writes a sentence I can perceive its meaning via context.	zero response.
11	"maybe you forgot this part of what a 'kick' may also demonstrate" "Factors contributing to kicks include loss of mud circulation, improper hole fills during well operations, incorrect estimates of formation pressures, and incorrect mud density" (71933500)	Once again reminded him he was quoting a ChatGPT summary of what I wrote. Secondly, explained that calculating the mud density accurately for every unknown pressure zone is near impossible. He was are trying to insinuate it is the driller's fault, this is wildly untrue. (71936459)	zero response.
12	"show me how you definitively know that 'oil' caused the 'kick' ? ..." (71933500)	I never said it was just 'oil'. I provided multiple examples of what caused the kick. "influx of hydrocarbons" at "3,916mMD" and "influx of hydrocarbons" at "3,769mMD" (71936459) etc.	zero response. "and finally we get to it ... so back to the original question 'what was the kick' ?" [zero acknowledgment of his stráwmán asking for the basis that oil caused the kick when no-one argued that, this is therefore not a real response].
13	" 'significant volume of oil in the shakers' ? ... months ago !! if so where may be any possible oil surface-sample with reported" (71933500)	"shut in the well whilst a higher mud weight was built up" (source: 17 Mar 2022, ASX:MAY, Total depth called for Alameda-1): A sample obviously can't be taken from the choke manifold during this time A cleanup obviously cannot be performed during a shutdown of this type Any sample taken without a cleanup will be contaminated and provide insignificant information They decided to end activity because: "when this looked like encroaching on our safety margins the decision to call total depth was made for us." (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 ultimate answer is, they needed a better designed well, to safely take a sample, hence Alameda-3. (71936459)	zero response.
14	"... Flambeau - show me how you definitively know that 'oil' caused the 'kick' ? ..."I never said it was purely oil."... finally we get to it ... so back to the original question 'what was the kick' ? Flam's only near answer so far something like 'never said it was all oil' ... Hint - ok continue ?	"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)." (71954058)	zero response... the answer he seeks is likely intellectual property (technical innovation), completely unreasonable.
15	"so how was a sample taken maybe in an A-1 upper-zone" (71953764)	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). (71954058)	zero response.
16	"are you saying the only time oil shows were recorded were during a 'kick' event ?" (71954208)	"Remember when you praised this post: 71811254 by saying "... good post" (source: 71822847), you already know I don't believe oil shows were recorded only when there was a kick event."	zero response.
17	" were these images taken during a 'kick' ?" (71954208)	"It depends which images you are talking about. The following quote is clearly describing "subsequent strong oil shows" "paused after encountering a high pressure zone resulting in an influx of hydrocarbons into the wellbore and subsequent strong oil shows on the shakers." (source: 9 Mar 2022, ASX:MAY, Alameda-1 Hydrocarbon influx into wellbore https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02497170-3A589426)	zero response.
18	"how was the pacific sample taken that was reported in the MAY ann. 02 Nov 2021" (71954556)	"By down hole wireline sampling tools, as described in 9 Dec 2022, ASX:MAY, Countdown to appraisal of oil found in Block 9." "Why couldn't they just do the same in Alameda/Marti reservoirs you are inevitably going to ask?" Andrew Purcell: "that made it very difficult to do anything else other than control the well" and "but we couldn’t get a sample, because it was mixed with muds" Source: Andrew Purcell, chairman of ASX:MAY, Investor Stream Webinar Series: Melbana Energy (ASX:MAY) Investor Briefing (November 15, 2022) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydrJ5J5hf9c&ab_channel=InvestorStream (71961281)	zero response. The answer he seeks is likely intellectual property (technical innovation), completely unreasonable.