So let me get this straight. You are taking what someone else wrote, and you want me to comment on that because you have zero issue with anything I have posted? Furthermore, you said "without reposting the net" (source:
), to demand that I not use sources and quotes from predominantly petroleumengineering literature is the height of ignorance. Making demands on whether or not I post from sources and literature is a tell-tale sign of what your motive is. It tells me you don't actually want the truth, you just want to play a game of semantics. Unfortunately for you, I won't play your games, and I will continue to post undeniable facts from reputable sources.
Yes, the kick was dangerous.
Why is it dangerous?
"A kick occurs when the downhole wellbore pressure is less than the pore pressure of the formation, which allows the kick influx...". "A well explosion, known as a 'blowout', might occur if the kick is not detected early and appropriately mitigated." source: Zachopoulos, F., & Kokkinos, N. (2023). Detection methodologies on oil and gas kick: a systematic review. International Journal of Oil Gas and Coal Technology, 33(1), 1-19.
How does it occur? (assuming you are asking how the kick occurs, once again it is not my fault you are not specific)
"The unscheduled formation fluid influx into the wellbore can occur in two fundamental ways: by reducing the hydrostatic mud column or the mud density. Both reasons can lead to a low bottom hole pressure allowing the formation hydrocarbon fluids to enter the wellbore. The loss of mud circulation into the formation or the improper hole fills up while tripping in and out of the well may reduce the height of the mud column. Since the bottom hole wellbore pressure is a product of the mud weight and height of the mud column, the reduction of the mud column can lead to a reduction of the hydrostatic pressure allowing the formation fluids to enter the wellbore. On the other hand, the mud weight is usually programmed by estimating the formation pressures by conducting wireline or real-time logging of the well or by using available data from nearby offset wells and seismic surveys. Safety factors must be applied to the acquired data to reduce uncertainty. Nevertheless, these data can sometimes lead to incorrect estimations of the formation pressure. For instance, if an incorrect density is programmed and used for the drilling mud due to the underestimation of the pore pressure, the result will be a lower wellbore pressure that might lead to a kick of the formation fluids into the wellbore." source: Zachopoulos, F., & Kokkinos, N. (2023). Detection methodologies on oil and gas kick: a systematic review. International Journal of Oil Gas and Coal Technology, 33(1), 1-19.
How is it dangerous? (assuming you are asking how it is dangerous, once again it is not my fault you are not specific, I am just answering your ambiguous question, with every possible interpretation, to make sure you have no 'outs'):
"A well explosion, known as a 'blowout', might occur if the kick is not detected early and appropriately mitigated. The catastrophic consequences of a blowout can heavily affect and damage the environment, the financial and social status of the involved companies and even worst, it can cost human lives." source: Zachopoulos, F., & Kokkinos, N. (2023). Detection methodologies on oil and gas kick: a systematic review. International Journal of Oil Gas and Coal Technology, 33(1), 1-19.
"posts on the MAY threads around 18/24 months ago"No, if you think the posts are still relevant after all the discussions thus far, and further company explanations and clarifications, then you can repost them. First of all, even if I do go back that far, you might try to play a game whereby you say "oh that was not the post I am talking about", so I am not going to waste my time commenting on something that you can't be bothered to repeat as you did with "AF's" quote in this post that I am currently replying to.
-----------------------------------------------------
Evidence 1) "paused after encountering a high pressure zone resulting in an influx of hydrocarbonsinto the wellboreand 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)Evidence 2) "before these plans could be put into effect, however, at 3,916mMD another stronger influx of hydrocarbonsinto the wellboremade 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 hydrocarbonsinto the wellborepresenting 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)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For those watching at home here is the context for the main argument:
1) Dogpigtiger said: "strange they are still getting oil on shakers at the amistad units" (source: 71807765)
2) kingkev said: "what does that mean?" (source: 71807874) in response to Dogpigtiger.
3) I answered saying: "It isn't strange." my reason being, just because there is oil on the shakers doesn't mean it is strange, it is simply what happens when you drill through oil bearing rocks. (source: 71811254)
4) Linebacker11 praised my post as: "... good post ..." (source: 71822847), he probably got excited that it wasn't evidence of a kick... he probably didn't realise there actually was evidence of multiple kicks from Alameda-1... and to his surprise he must have been shocked when he read the next reply
5) The next reply was from me "paused after encountering a high pressure zone resulting in an influx of hydrocarbonsinto the wellboreand subsequent strong oil shows on the shakers." (source: 9 Mar 2022, ASX:MAY, Alameda-1 Hydrocarbon influx into wellbore) This one sentence alone is like a freight train hurtling towards the share price during the flow testing of the Marti reservoir in my opinion. And "before these plans could be put into effect, however, at 3,916mMD another stronger influx of hydrocarbonsinto the wellboremade 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 20221, ASX:MAY, Total depth called for Alameda-1). Clear examples of kicks which I even highlighted in yellow.
6) Linebacker11 then got very upset when faced with the fact that there actually were kicks which also caused "subsequent strong oil shows on the shakers". Such irony. He then tried to employ the "head in the sand", "stráwmán" tactic by ignoring the yellow highlighted examples of kicks and focusing on actions the drillers took to mitigate the kicks by saying: "...Wrong ! - this is 'not' a 'kick' ... these maybe some actions the drill-floor may perform during a 'kick' ..." (source: 71841486).
7) I then understood his argument which was to 'distract', and I politely ushered him back to the quotes highlighted in yellow which were clearly examples of kicks: "I even highlighted it for you... not sure how you could miss it. This was a kick by any definition. I went on to provide further evidence that it was a kick because of what they did to control the kick (in case you didn't believe it), in other words, you don't need to perform actions to control a kick if a kick isn't present... I understand finding out that there were multiple kicks in Alameda-1 is hard for you to swallow because it decimates 99% of the posts you wrote over the last few months, but this is just the reality of the situation." (source: 71844823)
8) He then tried to say I didn't know what I was talking about... "you clearly do not understand what a 'kick' is ..." (source: 71859868)
9) I then posted: "I provided clear examples of kicks in the original post and I highlighted them for you..." (source: 71860209)
10) He then wrote: "... as you seem incapable of answering the question of 'what was the kick' ... will ask it in different ways .....@Flambeau answer this straight-up question - 'was the kick dangerous & if so why and how ?" (source: 71893586). To accuse me of not knowing what a kick was, after I provided clear examples, and Linebacker11 even admitted that "these maybe some actions the drill-floor may perform during a 'kick' " (source: 71841486) [in other words, they might not do this unless there was a kick], at this point I understood I am not dealing with someone that is intellectually honest.
11) I then answered his question with sources: "A kick occurs when the downhole wellbore pressure is less than the pore pressure of the formation, which allows the kick influx...". "A well explosion, known as a 'blowout', might occur if the kick is not detected early and appropriately mitigated." source: Zachopoulos, F., & Kokkinos, N. (2023). Detection methodologies on oil and gas kick: a systematic review. International Journal of Oil Gas and Coal Technology, 33(1), 1-19.
Summary of the argument:
Linebacker11 was initially arguing with Sharetrader78, & thecone et. al. "... you reading this above Flam-post @thecone@Sharetrader78 ... there's your answer Le-Cone ..." (source: 71822847), he tried to use my post as evidence that the oil on the shakers wasn't from oil influx, he has been trying to spread fear and doubt about the lower sheets for months even saying "always consider what the mud-engineers maybe mixing in the pits ... may affect what is seen at the shakers." (source: 71752214). Therefore, Linebacker11 was so excited to see that someone other than himself thought that at one particular time the oil on the shackers was not due to oil influx during a kick (could have been from oil laden cuttings). However, as the discussion went on, Flambeau (me) clearly demonstrated that there has been multiple kicks in the lower sheets which are very bullish because of 1) evidence of pressure, 2) evidence of moveable oil,[reservoir, source rock etc] etc etc... 
(20min delay)