The statement in your article headed "CSM Blue sky" of May 16 is a classic case in point. "AFTER 20 days of testing, desorption results from core samples from the Cerulean-1 coal seam methane well have confirmed the prospectivity of ATP 854P…"
Not only that, but "The results from core, seismic and well data will allow Blue Energy to define a target area containing about 250 petajoules of contingent resources…". Will they indeed?
Reporting on just about any other resource generally involves an indication of grade, depth, width, areal extent etc before the punters would accept "confirmed prospectivity", but not so with CSM it appears.
Personally, I would like some indication of seam thicknesses, gas volumes (cubic metres per tonne, and AS RECEIVED - not dry-ash free which is a meaningless but larger number), coal quality and rank (to give an indication of saturation levels pending sorption isotherm work), and most of all, gas composition.
Where available, comments on seam permeability and water producibility and quality are equally pertinent in assessing seam gas "prospectivity".
Highly permeable seams giving 20 cubic metres per tonne may be spectacularly gassy, but if it's 95% carbon dioxide (often the case), it's NOT prospective.
Mal Bunny
Principal consultant
Earth Resources Australia
