Oil Search Resource Press Release

[Indoreservoir]

From Page 4 of the press release:

GCA and NSAI satisfy the ASX requirement of qualified petroleum reserve and resource evaluators as required by ASX Listing Rules Chapter 5 and have consented to publish the resource estimates in the form and context presented in this announcement. These resource estimates are based on, and fairly represent, information and supporting documentation prepared by GCA and NSAI.

The Certifiers were provided with a full set of available data at commencement of the process and new data as it has been received from the operator. The Certifiers have utilised results and data from all appraisal wells up to, and including, Antelope 6. The Certifiers were provided with the same data and information, with Oil Search providing such data or information (including raw, analysed and processed data and interpretive data and assessments) as the Certifiers reasonably required and requested and Oil Search reasonably believed would assist the Certifiers.

It is quite possible that both certifiers used OSH maps, verified them as reasonable, and then prepared the estimates.  That is likely based on the nearness of the results.

It is also unusual that they have some 80% C1 (C1 is about 80% of C2) which is very high.  They appear not to have given much upside and the spread from C1 to C2 to C3 is quite tight.

Will have further comments later – I just saw this information as haven’t been following things – too heavy in US natural gas at present!

But for now:

1. I was wrong when I thought GCA’s numbers would move towards GLJ

2. I do not think either reserve certifier did their own mapping based on what was noted above 'interpretative data and assessments'.  This reduces the certification cost and time considerably.  I don’t know how else to explain the close agreement between them.  The fact OSH internal numbers were very similar before the additional wells and seismic processing smells funny.  May be wrong on this; dunno.

3. There should have been reasonably broad ranges for porosity and water saturation and net thickness, which in turn would have made C1 to C3 range larger.  C1 being 80% of C2 is a big flag, ESPECIALLY in a carbonate.

4. PacLNG might have no rights to dispute the numbers – I guess.  Anyone who enters these agreements must insist on raw data only to the certifiers, with processed seismic being the only manipulated information presented, and the certifiers do ALL the work from scratch.  Costly/time consuming but necessary.  XOM will have done this.

5. OSH personnel involved in the certification would have been answering questions and commenting on both certifiers work.  As will all professionals, geophysicists, petrophyscists, geologists, and engineers are generally hesitant to criticize other’s work.  Especially when your firm is getting paid by OSH and want further work.

6. Wonder what Dave Holland will say about this.

More later.