Absolutely, of course my models could be wildly wrong! That's...

Absolutely, of course my models could be wildly wrong! That's what I've always said right from my very first post on STX. This is a type of CSG play that to my knowledge has never even been found elsewhere, much less successfully developed.

But they could also be wrong in both directions (ie reality is better or worse than my models), which is important to remember. There is upside but also downside. The reason this has never been done before is because it goes against conventional wisdom. If you think I'm pessimistic, you should talk to the rest of the industry - nearly everybody I mention STX to literally laughs at me when I bring it up.

They say the water is coming from sands they fracced into, they say the gas content measurements were done incorrectly (so saturation is wrong), they say the perm measurements are wrong, and much more.

But as you say, that can be brought on by heuristics, which is an area I am very aware of. To quote Donald Rumsfeld, there are known knowns and known unknowns, and I like to think I'm across the known unknowns - I know what I don't know about this play. That's what I mean when I say I'm confident I can reasonably define the limits of the play, and that the reality will fall somewhere in between those limits.

But there are also unknown unknowns - the things we don't know that we don't know. Those are the curveballs and those are the things that will stuff us up because we're not accounting for them properly. Anybody who says they know for sure how this play will turn out, even STX staff, I would have no hesitation in calling a liar. But STX staff would never say something like that, because they've shown they understand their unknowns.