What's to be excited about?

[petrengr1]

Confirmation. 2+2=4
Did you hear what he said?

[petrengr1]

OK, I take it that you were not listening. In the first post of this string, post#8405, I told you that the field had more than a 4,000 foot gas column and I would be happy if the Company confirmed that.
Now go back and listen closely to what Phil said to Sal in the question and answer portion of the call. Something like "there is another 2,000 feet up dip on top of the 2,000 feet we are about to drill at T-2." Hence my comment 2 + 2 = 4 or 2,000 + 2,000 = 4,000 feet. So Phil confirmed what I told you in the above post.

[ArtM72]

Pet -
I believe I see what you're saying, but page 21 shows the "Base Carbonate" to rise westward in the strike along with the "Top Carbonate", with the distance between the base and top carbonates diminishing to around 350 meters.

I frankly can't read these charts worth a damn, only guessing the red and dark blue lines represent the limestone deposits (or maybe enhanced or diminished return of echos by voids in those deposits?). Anyway, the crossection only shows a nominal 1-2000 foot carbonate thickness, not 4,000.

Only trying to understand...

[petrengr1]

Art- I tried to explain this elsewhere(see post #8411 above). The height of the gas column is the “vertical” height/distance above the gas/water contact. For that part of the field where the bottom of the carbonate is above the gas/water contact the “thickness” of the gas column in a particular well is limited to the thickness of the pay zone (carbonate) but the height of the gas column in a particular well is the vertical distance from the top of the zone to the gas/water contact.