Member Info for Zebra04

Thanks Grh

That quote was taken from

Methanogens and Methanogenesis in Hypersaline Environments

T. J. McGenity

I don't think the biogenic necessarily has to be newer although generally it is.

From my understanding it could've been formed when those layers were shallower and then was sealed off.

I've got an itch pointing towards messinian salinity crisis.

Methanogenesis in hypersaline environments is determined by redox potential and permanency of anaerobic conditions, and by the concentration of other terminal electron acceptors, particularly sulfate, because sulfate-reducing bacteria have a greater affinity than methanogens for competitive substrates like hydrogen and acetate. Hypersalinity, however, is not an obstacle to methanogenesis; in many cases it provides higher concentrations of non-competitive substrates like methylamines, which derive from compatible solutes such as glycine-betaine that is synthesized by many microbes inhabiting hypersaline environments. Also, depletion of sulfate, as may occur in deeper sediments, allows increased methanogenesis

No idea how this fits in. Paul should do an interview.

Sefton we all agree death threats are dispicable and have no place in society. I'm sorry grh is having to go through that.

However telling another poster to be put down is also not on.

Let's not forget our own standards.

"Seven gas samples collected in isotubes in MOU-3 whilst drilling at measured depths of 446, 508, 555, 750, 817, 846 and 1395."

"Gas composition is in the range 98.04 to 99.57% methane" dry gas.

A range of 1km and only 1.5% variation in methane concentration. That's impressive.

High pressure and high concentrations.

Biogenic part. From what I've researched the methane is formed early on in shallow depth before lots of compaction. A great seal is required early on. Finding it at multiple layers going down to 1.4km is intriguing.

Curious to know others view on it.

Av

In their defence the last RNS did nothing to change what we have. The reserves remain the same.

What's changed is we know for sure small explosive guns won't work.

It was a risk of drilling high pressure formations using very heavy mud to prevent a blowout. If we had a blowout and lost the well that would be much worse.

The board is "very confident" sandjet will work.

Admittedly I overreacted too, partly due to all the hype. However after researching the issue, it's not a big deal.

Paul should do an interview to elaborate on the RNS.

Read 30th November rns.

Read the last few rns it mentions it.

They don't need to say how confident they are in a test in an rns.

Gudin they wouldn't need to mention that as we'll never know.

A third party said it would be sufficient, it wasn't which they mentioned.

The original plan was sandjet due to what they already know about the formation.

"In order to carry out Phase 1 rigless testing, conventional 111/16" perforating guns, being the only option available at the time to allow Phase 1 rigless testing to commence before 5 February"

Contract is a contract.

Gudin

Sure I blame Paul for the delays. However at some stage he knew sandjet wasn't going to be ready in time so had to use explosives. Then typical of prd he couldn't source the right guns leaving him no choice but to use the small guns or be in breach of ammendment 3.

It's frustrating but he had no choice at the time. I'm hoping it's a wake up call for the board. Things need to move along quicker.

Considering we used heavy muds and the formation damage is more extensive than we thought. Does that mean the porosity/permeability is possibly higher than predicted? Therfore potentially higher flow rates.

If we got the formation pressure wrong, am i correct in thinking that would show up quickly during drilling?

Does this mean the result from the wirelines logs and nutech analysis were limited by the damage and would've been better?

Page 58 concludes

"Perforating beyond the formation damage will be the greatest challenge"

Page 48

"Sandjet allows delivery of a greater number and depth of perforation well suited to thin and finely laminated turbidite reservoir which are not well suited to conventional perforation technologies which deliver a limited number of shallow perforations which can conceivably all line up with shale rather than sands or fail to reach undamaged target formations."

So the fact we knew and still used small guns confirms it was just to satisfy the testing deadline.

I've had a run through sdx and sound rns. There's no precedent of ONHYM being less than helpful and so granting of the 4th extension should be a formality

Although this setback is frustrating a guess its just another delay to sandjet testing as originally planned.

3 x 250k buys gone through on lvl1

BTW

1TB is 1000gb.

A large image is 20mb, 1gb fits 50 large images/diagrams.

1tb fits 50,000 images and or diagrams. 2tb 100,000 images.

Text files take up hardly any data.

For example the recent ITR was 8mb. 1TB is 125000 more data.

Reap what you sow.

Keith pointed put earlier.

The gas was biogenic instead of thermogenic.

From Google,

"Biogenic gas is generated at low temperatures by decomposition of organic matter by anaerobic microorganisms. More than 20% of the world’s discovered gas reserves are of biogenic origin. A higher percentage of gases of predominantly biogenic origin will be discovered in the future. Biogenic gas is an important target for exploration because it occurs in geologically predictable circumstances and in areally widespread, large quantities at shallow depths"

Long day but mou4 is updip? So if biogenic gas is at at mou3 and the reservoir is laterally connected from the wireline logs and nutech analysis. Would mou 4 have more of this biogenic gas? We know they're targeting thicker reservoir at mou4.

Again not my expertise.

Jimmy

Thanks for the clarification.

Smart play on words for sure. There's no need to be obscure.

Donald,

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "underway" and "commenced".

Something can't be underway and then commence on a later date.

Rns from 5th Feb

"following the completion of the Company's rigless testing programme, which is currently underway"

Rns from today.

"Phase 1 rigless testing operations commenced on 10 February 2024 after arrival at the well"

So the rns on the 5th was fraudulent?

All those delays and dilutions to then test with the wrong perforating guns.

Mms will take a mil shares in a single trade