Oil Search fails to hit gas at Hides well in Papua New Guinea

[jdeo1969]

100% JFT? Seriously?

[jft310]

Higher column , further west yields what ??
Porosity ?? Connectivity ?? How much of an add ??
But it's taller and further out. More gas of an unknown quantity.

[jdeo1969]

YOU SAID 100%. That's irresponsible. Likely perhaps, more than likely maybe. but 100% is simply something you absolutely cannot know. It's just more of the same we get from you. Never a cloudy day in the world of IOC as far as you are concerned. When it rains, it rains LNG in PNG I guess. When it's cloudy it's smoke from another huge IOC find. Please keep things realistic. You cannot possibly know 100% there is more than 7.1 Ts, although there very well may be.

[Thylacine-2]

Please, let's not quibble over the 100% thing. What we do know for sure, 100% :-), is that the 7.1 TCF estimate was years and wells ago. It's a relic. As I recall it was a number from before even Ant-3 was drilled. It's not important enough now to even take the trouble to look it up.

[Putncalls]

Please, let's not quibble over the 100% thing. What we do know for sure, 100% :-), is that the 7.1 TCF estimate was years and wells ago. It's a relic. As I recall it was a number from before even Ant-3 was drilled. It's not important enough now to even take the trouble to look it up.

Given the CS,MS,McGuiere and Berstien all use the 7.1 number AND reference CGA in their PPS analysis it must be relevant.

[Getitrt2]

[quote='Thylacine-2' pid='55841' dateline='1426017786'] Please, let's not quibble over the 100% thing. What we do know for sure, 100% :-), is that the 7.1 TCF estimate was years and wells ago. It's a relic. As I recall it was a number from before even Ant-3 was drilled. It's not important enough now to even take the trouble to look it up.

Given the CS,MS,McGuiere and Berstien all use the 7.1 number AND reference CGA in their PPS analysis it must be relevant.

[/quote

I would say it's relevant only as a conservative CYA reference point that is just big enough for them to incorporate two trains in their analyses and projections and targets, and still be comfortably conservative.  Notice they also show projections on the side for higher numbers.  It should also be noted those analyses were issued before the latest appraisal information, and I doubt they will update them before getting more confirmation.  I agree with Thy that it has little if any real relevance now.

[Putncalls]

[quote='Thylacine-2' pid='55841' dateline='1426017786'] Please, let's not quibble over the 100% thing. What we do know for sure, 100% :-), is that the 7.1 TCF estimate was years and wells ago. It's a relic. As I recall it was a number from before even Ant-3 was drilled. It's not important enough now to even take the trouble to look it up.

Given the CS,MS,McGuiere and Berstien all use the 7.1 number AND reference CGA in their PPS analysis it must be relevant.

[/quote

I would say it's relevant only as a conservative CYA reference point that is just big enough for them to incorporate two trains in their analyses and projections and targets, and still be comfortably conservative.  Notice they also show projections on the side for higher numbers.  It should also be noted those analyses were issued before the latest appraisal information, and I doubt they will update them before getting more confirmation.  I agree with Thy that it has little if any real relevance now.

Your right as always getit. It's only relevant to the PPS and those that don't read your comments.

[jft310]

JDEO did PET increase his estimate after the last 2 wells ?? Yes or no will do ??
Has Laurie Brown revealed enhanced seismics not in GCA or GLJ??yes or no will do ??
Did Ant 5 strike the formation higher than the models ? Yes or no will do??
Is IOC mgt giddy over Ant 5 results . A yes or no will do ????
Does the aggregate without adding more facts lead a reasonable person to assume the GCA reserve numbers will be higher than before the above wells were drilled ???
Notice I can not quantify tbe addition but it's 100 percent the numbers from at least GCA will be raised .
Just the facts will do JDEO yes or no .

[Putncalls]

I agree with you jft and I don't think the market is following the drilling minutiae as closely as some. 100% might be a bit over the top. Maybe 90 to 100% until the continuity test.

[jft310]

Puts I certainly admit we need porosity levels revealed and connectivity tests. But even if Ant 5 is not connected it's got gas and most revealing is the reaction of mgt they are giddy over Ant 5 results . They know more than they are saying is a an understatement and the only way to explain the quote" giddy over results " end quote. Then PET raised his estimates .
The only logical conclusion is more assets .