'ArtM72' pid='72376' datel Wrote:
'kommonsents' pid='72369' datel Wrote:
Are you saying that GLJ will be certifying for this deal?
I don't think so. And if not, who?
And once who, what pressures will be upon them to be very conversative with their certification, as long as two trains are supported. Heck, we can always recertify later with "new" information and understandings. Just sayin'......
No, I'm saying that there are still professions where honesty reigns over advocacy and engineering remains one of them. For good reasons. I'm not saying GLJ will be certifying this deal, only that the extensiveness of the testing to date should leave a much narrower range of solutions possible than in 2012 when the last publicly known appraisal by other than GLC was performed. More importantly, engineers have far more to lose by falsifying their results than to gain. I see the strong likelihood that two engineers, provided full and open access to existing data, will end up closer to 10.2 than whatever Hession or Botten might say publicly.
I worry about certifying engineers will be given a limited data set and that the disqualification of certifying engineers due to their previous studies of the E/A reservoir is just another manifestation of malfeasance. Anyone else would look to take advantage of the savings in cost and time by not having to start the study from scratch. Not Hession.
It may not be necessary to have dishonesty as the reason for a lower certification. When the scope and means of the certification contract is drawn up, it is possible to create a scenario that will favor an outcome. I don't think IOC shareholders will have much say over that.
