Internally IOC

[Dr. Wu]

is giddy over this release.  I am told the significance of this PR should not be understated.  Apparently there was always some question among third parties over the intersection height in the western part of the PRL and of course IOC was never going to get paid on their estimate until proven.  This higher intersection point (as we all know) is very significant, proves up a vastly larger western flank where it approaches the fault, and addresses any questions regarding extension and height of the "tank". IOC's pre-drill estimate was high enough to support optimism, but this higher intersection has them very encouraged.  Some people I've spoken to (non IOC people) have asked whether Ant-6 is now necessary once 4/5 are complete.  My opinion is that with a resource payment pending, Ant-6 will go ahead as suggested and prove this field up for a significant payment. All in all another very positive box checked, and an important one.

[Tree]

Thanks Doc Tension which prevented a sale by a Phil led IOC is understandable. Phil required being paid top dollar for top end optimistic volumes. Hession struck a genius deal to secure upside in PRL15 as he understood no SM will pay up based on some minor's optimism. Now IOC looks to be on the March to prove that top end optimistic T count. Alforf stated 14 Ts based on GLJ conservative recovery rates alone. This is good and it may be under appreciated here and now but that changes with a substantial recert upgrade and a big fat check from TOT

[jft310]

Heard the same this AM about the West comment very significant to have hit . A non IOC person . But one who knows with authority many things IOC.

[sageo]

is giddy over this release.  I am told the significance of this PR should not be understated.  Apparently there was always some question among third parties over the intersection height in the western part of the PRL and of course IOC was never going to get paid on their estimate until proven.  This higher intersection point (as we all know) is very significant, proves up a vastly larger western flank where it approaches the fault, and addresses any questions regarding extension and height of the "tank". IOC's pre-drill estimate was high enough to support optimism, but this higher intersection has them very encouraged.  Some people I've spoken to (non IOC people) have asked whether Ant-6 is now necessary once 4/5 are complete.  My opinion is that with a resource payment pending, Ant-6 will go ahead as suggested and prove this field up for a significant payment. All in all another very positive box checked, and an important one.

 Dr. Wu- Thanks for your post. I apologize up-front,but I too am giddy over this release.[ we will probably just get yet another "yawn" over the announcement,but that really should not be the case.] Your fine words" proves up a vastly larger western flank where it approches the fault" are very significant,imho.On another thread today,I mentioned the possibility of a future date well north of A5 and west of A3. Maybe we could call it A7. When I dug out my (getting fatter) file on IOC ,I found an old E/A map from a Seeking Alpha post dated 12/28/13 entitled"a sober look at interoils deal with Total SA". On that map,it appears that our target fm is higher to the sw of Ant 1 and the nw of Ant 2 ,which I believe would indicate that a spot west of Ant 3 could be a likely candidate for a possible Ant 7 well-site. Yes, we would be a little riskier( because of the fault), but if our western flank IS truly larger and Total becomes the "operator " at a future date,then they might consider the Ant 7 well to be somewhere sw of Ant 1. [I hope Stavros isn't watching today, he might use the "D" word on me...ha,ha ] Good luck to you,sir.

[Palm]

Thanks good Doctor! These results all point two a reservoir which will more than supply a 2-train startup. How much more we should know by this fall after all testing has been completed and the independent companies get their estimates together. TD at Ants 4 and 5 can hardly get here quick enough.

[Putncalls]

I wonder why IOC lowered the top of the reservoir next to the western fault in their presentation slides. Is the map presented on the JAN slide the reference case? Why lower the top of the reservoir estimate AND say that the latest seismic indicates that Antelope is "larger". Spock says that Kirk is not being logical.

[bdahl385]

Laurie Brown stated the following regarding seismic on Dec.3rd (PNG Mining and Petroleum Conf Presentation):

"This advance is relatively recent from just last year.

Indeed, itis important to note that all independent resource estimates to date, be they GCA or GLJ, have been

assessed on the original processing only – the lower panel. We have yet to evaluate a resource position for Elk

- Antelope based on the considerably improved data quality to which we now have access. The impact should be obvious.

In this regard, we are evaluating Elk - Antelope in - house, incorporating this improved dataset and

the recently acquired additional seismic over the south of the field. Beyond Elk-Antelope we now have this reprocessed data over almost all of our acreage and we

are looking back at our entire prospect inventory with fresh eyes.It is because of the level of insight that seismic provides, that it is such a powerful pre-drill risk reduction tool. In short, seismic defines the prospects and drilling locations."

I wonder if the "miss" of 230m in finding the top of the reservoir at A5 was based on the "newly" processed data. Lauries tone made it sound like the newly processed data made it much easier to get consensus on the top / bottom of the reservoir for volumetric calculatioins.   230m is a pretty big miss and although it is great news that the top is high to prognosis, it makes me wonder if there will still be a high "uncertainty factor" in determining the reservoir volumes for recertification.

[Thylacine-2]

Maybe it wasn't a "miss" so much as underpromising and overdelivering.

[jft310]

Humm Dr Hession has a PHD in underpromising and overdelivering..

[ebster123]

Humm Dr Hession has a PHD in underpromising and overdelivering..

not for nothing but we have seen he has a PhD in under promising and hope to see the PhD in over delivering but I have not seen it yet.  I hope too, but have not seen it yet!