Later, Domer explained to the board members that the log tests showed that there were hydrocarbons in the two layers tested, and that the pores data that emerged in the tests were not as good as expected:
"The logs showed that there are hydrocarbons in two layers, at a depth of 5,400 meters and a depth of between 5,250 and 5,350 meters, if I am not mistaken. The results for oil in terms of pores are not as good as we expected. The question at the moment is what is the conductivity of the rock, it is important that in addition to the pores, there should be conductivity. We conducted logs to examine the issue and the results did not show that there are many fractures that could have a positive effect on conductivity. At the same time, it is important to note that the conductivity was simply lower than we expected. This is the information we have now. After there is a final decoding of the IMAG LOG, we will be able to know if there are fractures or not." (Page 1)
After these remarks, Domer was asked by one of the external directors questions regarding his recommendations and answered them:
Yitzhak Kiali: From your experience, can we conclude that this is a good well? Do you recommend doing production tests?
Chuck Domer: The logs indicate that there is oil. It's good. The production tests will tell what the quality is. I recommend taking the production tests and in both levels.
Yitzhak Kayali: The company has invested about $150 million so far. Do you think the results warrant an additional $20 million investment?
Chuck Domer: There's oil, we know it. The question of whether it is in commercial quantities and this cannot be said, we will be able to answer this only after the tests are performed." (Page 2)
The discussion about the performance of the production tests, and the results of the electrical log tests, continued after Domer left the meeting. Levy explained to those present that in the electrical logs tests, both "good" and "bad" data were obtained, and from his words it appears that even according to him, the figure regarding the pore rate is in the "bad" part of the picture. This, along with the hope that other data he can find, such as the existence of cracks in the rock, will compensate for it: