risk vs reward

Yet another technical issue 'eh, nothing wrong with the fundamentals. The signs were there of HC so the fundamentals dont change here.

Technical difficulty with the DST-tool, sample chambers etc r part & parcel of testing, happens too often & the operator generally conducts multiple runs. So its not all over as many have suggested.

All part of risk vs reward.

1) First risk being the formation itself (too tight or lack of gas etc which isn't the case here IMHO)
2) Second being the DST tool/packer/seals.

As for the DST tool itself, too complex a subject to discuss on HC. Perhaps time to do a google search on the anatomy of a DST tool, packers, seals etc.

It's not uncommon for the tool to fail or whenever there's any blockages or something else. My guess is its the later at P#2.

The well was securely lined, cemented & flushed clean with brine so post-perforation the only debris blocking it would b frm the liner, traces of cement particles & the Plover sands itself.

IMHO, they should attempt more tests, after all the porosity. permeability, reservoir pressure, gas saturation etc is known frm the cores, WL logs & the MDT tool

What Conoco would want is the insitu gas composition, as they have no sample frm P#1. They need this to analyse the as for its heavies & thenback their original FLNG aspirations. So even if this doesnot flow, I'd expect the JV to get some gas sample.

Will chk nxt week's update as Smithmeister returns fmr his holidays. Should b good, me thinks.

Have a plan all. For those who parachuted out, well done (wellington etc), to those still in there, hang on. Ain't over yet.