'jft310' pid='43114' datel Wrote:

How many times do we need to provide links?..

Facts are Getit has now 3 times been provided the links and still posts without looking up what's on the links. One needs to ask why.

jft310, I am confused (doesn't take much to do that these days), What actually are you trying to say?

'sydbod' pid='43118' datel Wrote:

'jft310' pid='43114' datel Wrote:

How many times do we need to provide links?..

Facts are Getit has now 3 times been provided the links and still posts without looking up what's on the links. One needs to ask why.

jft310, I am confused (doesn't take much to do that these days), What actually are you trying to say?

Good question, Sydbod; add me to the "confused" category.  It sounds like he's stating some false or at best very shaky assumptions about what I read or check, and questioning my motives and honesty.  You would think if he's going to do that, he would have the guts and civility to be more specific.  One might also think that he has a hard time accepting having anything he says questioned by another shareholder, and is trying to cover up or divert attention from erroneous or unsupported statements he might have made.

I don't know what links he is accusing me of previously not looking up that I should have.  I look up any links I think might have something needed or of interest not already in the post, and I do not post anything I have not done due diligence on.  I certainly do not have any ulterior motive to dishonestly bash, or pump, the Company/stock or anyone on this board, or bash anyone at all for that matter.

OSH's Reserves and Resources Statement shows, in addition to reserves and contingent resources for PNG LNG Project gas, contingent resources of gas for PNG Other of 1.954 Tcf.  That includes P'nyang, which I would think is the bulk of it, and is "Net to Oil Search", which owns only 38.5% of P'nyang.  It is not indicated, and I do not know, who if anyone has certified that, and I have not claimed to know.

JFT stated that according to Netherland Sewell OSH has NO GAS at P'nyang, among other things.  I questioned that based on information/statements from OSH and Exxon.  JFT responded by saying per NS OSH has "no reserves", "zero nada", without offering any wording issue, and launched an all-out personal attack.  Give me a break;  we've had enough of that kind of crap from shorts.

Thanks for raising an appropriate question, Sydbod.

'Getitrt2' pid='43143' dateline='<a href="tel:1399911 Wrote:

'sydbod' pid='43118' dateline='<a href="tel:1399740 Wrote:

'jft310' pid='43114' dateline='<a href="tel:1399719 Wrote:

How many times do we need to provide links?..

Facts are Getit has now 3 times been provided the links and still posts without looking up what's on the links. One needs to ask why.

jft310, I am confused (doesn't take much to do that these days), What actually are you trying to say?

Good question, Sydbod; add me to the "confused" category.  It sounds like he's stating some false or at best very shaky assumptions about what I read or check, and questioning my motives and honesty.  You would think if he's going to do that, he would have the guts and civility to be more specific.  One might also think that he has a hard time accepting having anything he says questioned by another shareholder, and is trying to cover up or divert attention from erroneous or unsupported statements he might have made.

I don't know what links he is accusing me of previously not looking up that I should have.  I look up any links I think might have something needed or of interest not already in the post, and I do not post anything I have not done due diligence on.  I certainly do not have any ulterior motive to dishonestly bash, or pump, the Company/stock or anyone on this board, or bash anyone at all for that matter.

OSH's Reserves and Resources Statement shows, in addition to reserves and contingent resources for PNG LNG Project gas, contingent resources of gas for PNG Other of 1.954 Tcf.  That includes P'nyang, which I would think is the bulk of it, and is "Net to Oil Search", which owns only 38.5% of P'nyang.  It is not indicated, and I do not know, who if anyone has certified that, and I have not claimed to know.

JFT stated that according to Netherland Sewell OSH has NO GAS at P'nyang, among other things.  I questioned that based on information/statements from OSH and Exxon.  JFT responded by saying per NS OSH has "no reserves", "zero nada", without offering any wording issue, and launched an all-out personal attack.  Give me a break;  we've had enough of that kind of crap from shorts.

Thanks for raising an appropriate question, Sydbod.

Getit -I see you continue to post without following Palms link. Why? You need to look at the reservoir report . Something Botten

can not distort . Please do not post again about this until you follow the link to the Nerthland Sewell asset report for Dec 2013 .

Thanks. It's there black and white

Here's Palms post

'jft310' pid='43166' datel Wrote:

IOC has said from time to time they "estimate" or "think" they have a certain amount of Ts, but we know that counts for nada. As does (or should) P'nyang for OSH. They officially have ZERO Ts based on info filed with ASX. Unless someone can find something differently.

'Palm' pid='43168' datel Wrote:........ In the O&G world if it's not certified you can think and estimate all you want, but it counts for nada.

This is why I mentioned "It appears that the argument is based on peoples various perceptions".

I dont necessarily disagree with you in principle, I am just trying to highlight that PPS are also perception based. I do know that myself and probably many others even on this forum, look at what they believe the most probable outcome will be, and base their investment decision on that. It does not matter if the G or O happens to be a resource or reserve or whatever, to them.

Where things have come unstuck is when statements have been made that are twisted and not totally correct or representative. EG:

"How many times has he  talked about 2.5 T's in PN'Yang and his reservoir engineer Netherland Sewell says zero"

This implies that Netherland Sewell looked at P'Nyang and determined that there is zero gas there. We both know (I believe) that Netherland Sewell have not made a determination on that field so they have not made an allocation for the quantity of gas there. That is not the same as saying that  Netherland Sewell believe there is no gas there.

It is from this point on where all the problems in this thread took hold.

It is so very easy for members to get into conflict when one happens to be talking about the letter of a situation, and the other is talking about the spirit of the same situation.

'jft310' pid='43166' datel Wrote:

Getit -I see you continue to post without following Palms link. Why? You need to look at the reservoir report . Something Botten

can not distort . Please do not post again about this until you follow the link to the Nerthland Sewell asset report for Dec 2013 .

Thanks. It's there black and white

Here's Palms post

On OSH's website under Reserves and Resources, they make this statement: "All oil fields were audited at the end of 2012 by independent auditors, Netherland Sewell & Associates, Inc. (NSAI). No fields were audited in 2013 as performance during the year was closely in line with expectations. Field performance will be monitored in order to determine whether a further audit of any of the fields is justified in 2014. Gas reserves are subject to audit under instruction from the PNG LNG Project operator, ExxonMobil PNG Limited."

http://www.oilsearch.com/Our-Activities/...urces.html

So nothing was done at P'nyang of any significance in 2013 except seismic work which being analysed. At the end of 2012 P'nyang was lumped together with Other PNG licenses outside of those dedicated to PNG LNG and showed no change; certainly no 2.5 to 3 TCFs attributable to P'nyang as it would have been listed by itself most likely.

IOC has said from time to time they "estimate" or "think" they have a certain amount of Ts, but we know that counts for nada. As does (or should) P'nyang for OSH. They officially have ZERO Ts based on info filed with ASX. Unless someone can find something differently.

JFT, I told you before I followed the links and reviewed information;  I even cited/posted some information above from the Reserves and Resources Statement.  If you continue to make such false statements, I will consider them deliberate lies in the future.  Try reading my posts more closely, word for word, "there in black and white" as you say.  I assume by "Nerthland(sic) Sewell asset report for Dec 2013", you mean the Oil Search "2013 Reserves and Resources Statement" dated 27 February 2014, right?

Palm, I assume you realize the NSAI audits referred to here are only for "OIL fields" and "gas reserves" of the PNG LNG Project.  There is no indication I see NSAI has had anything to do with anything else, such as P'nyang, positive or negative, and I have not tried to say so.

Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself in saying that "P'nyang was lumped together with Other PNG", but that they now show "certainly no 2.5 to 3 TCFs attributable to P'nyang as it would have been listed by itself most likely".  Note that in Table 4 of the Statement under Contingent Resources, they show gas of 1.954 Tcf for "PNG Other Gas", and that Note 7 under that specifically states that "Other Gas" includes P'nyang.  Also note that the resource figures are "Net to Oil Search".  Therefore, since Oil Search owns only 38.5% of P'nyang, that figure on the Statement would only include that portion of P'nyang, if I am understanding the Statement properly.

I know nothing about what is or is not "certified" for P'nyang.  However, it is stated that this Reserves and Resources Statement was prepared in accordance with ASX Listing Rules. Would it not have been filed with the ASX?