RE: Avoidance of any doubt9 Sep 2021 16:19
Wacky, I've managed to pull something together at last. I'll start at the beginning. I may be wrong so as always DYOR.
TGB2a was the target defined as 'Sands equivalent to the lower Hoot of the Rharb Basin'. This was also the target that was identified due to COVID delays (remember them?) and is now identified as the MOU4 location drill main target.
On top of this was TGB2 target. Originally defined as 'Sands equivalent to the lower Guebbas of the Rharb Basin'. Now we know that since the drill this TGB2 target has been referred to as the 'seismic bright spot' and is structurally linked to TGB2a targets. Also now referred to as the 'Material Gas Trap'
TGB2 I would say was roughly 160 metres above the TGB2a target (original Hoot sands target). So the phrase in the latest presentation 'Re-correlated as Hoot Sand based on volcanic marker datum (160 metres above this important stratigraphic marker)'
I think that is referring to the TGB2 target now being combined, at a shallower depth, with the originally defined TGB2a/ Hoot sands.
Hope that makes sense....
Now to go deeper....
From the drilling logs there was an unexpected 2-3 day delay at approx. 450 metres. You can see from the chart that they were drilling 300 metres in a day, so this delay cost them 600-900 metres of drilling.
However, we know from mud logs of the increase in pressure and the risk to the well bore. There would have also been financial implications for continuing. Which brings me to the targets below 1500m....
These were briefly touched on by Methodology and took me a little while to check out. During that time a torrent of abuse had rained on the board so decided to refrain from the conversation.
So SDX target LMS2 sands equivalent... Now I'm sure I posted about this sometime ago (many months) but would need to check my own history. Either way I discounted it as a target as from the SDX information I had read at the time they had abandoned it as not being commercially viable. So, the idea to piggyback onto their testing was a nonstarter from what I could see.
The deeper targets TGB1a are the 'Jurassic equivalent to those gas bearing on logs in offset well GRF¬1'. This is from the well drilled in 1972 and on the previous presentation these were classed as 'not necessarily of commercial volume'.
So, with those two bits of information. The extra cost required to go to the 2000m depth and complete to that depth for what looked like little reward. And already knowing the drill had achieved key goals. I can see why they stopped.
Hopefully that makes sense for people. As always DYOR.
Now time to look at MOU5 prospect. Although I may leave that until after the presentation to see what further ‘breadcrumbs’ are put down….
GLA
Sign In
Follow the stocks
