|
Oil Search slides
|
|
P
Look at slide 22
Reserves and Resources
Elk Antelope-no change despite positive results , due to impending independent review o
slide 26
Papua LNG Project , positive appraisal , selection of project sites , discussions on financing commenced
s
Slide 29
Either a 1 train 5mtpa or 2 smaller trains
FiD in 2018 proceeded by early works
Slide 30
worth a look
on oil Search website u dear investor presentations
(02-24-2016, 05:54 AM)jft310 Wrote: http://tinyurl.com/zft87nh " OSH preliminary interpretation of Elk-Antelope (PRL 15) appraisal results to date suggests gross 2C resource could increase >5.3 tcf" Yes that's the C-1 number from GCA. The GCA C-2 number was 7.0 TCF. Oil Search pays PAC on C-2. Total pays IOC on C-2. These are non updated numbers , do not include any 2015 on results . Exxon only works off C-1 numbers but they are not relevant to a non Exxon project . Our project is a Total project dear Oil Search hello!!
(02-24-2016, 06:35 AM)jft310 Wrote: The statement from the slide is talking about 2C not 1C. Strictly speaking what the statement say is: OSH preliminary interpretation of Elk-Antelope (PRL 15) appraisal results to date suggests gross 2C resource could increase greater than 5.3 tcf I can not really beleive they are saying they think the 2C resource could increase more than 5.3 tcf. If their 2C number before was 7.0 tcf they are saying it could be as much as (7 + 5.3) 12.3 tcf. Must be wishful thinking but they need to write more clearly. So what does it mean? Anyone? Maybe some of you OSH shareholders can call their IR people and ask for clarification.
02-24-2016, 07:09 AM
It would quite a coincidence, if the increase of the C2 estimate just happens to be the GCA C1 number?
(02-24-2016, 07:09 AM)Putncalls Wrote: It would quite a coincidence, if the increase of the C2 estimate just happens to be the GCA C1 number? I agree. As I said they need to write more carefully. So you think they meant to say "gross 1C" instead of "gross 2C"? and that they are not really talking about an "increase" but what they are trying to tell us is that the 1C resource number could be more than 5.3 tcf and not an increase of more than 5.3 tcf. . Is that what you think? There could be several interpretations.
02-24-2016, 07:23 AM
I have no idea what the final number will be
Fact the GCA P-1 number was 5.3 The GCA P-2 number was 7.0 before any 2015 or 16 additions Appears the Oil Search slide preparer needs a better fact checker or proof reader .
02-24-2016, 07:25 AM
Putncalls -- It would quite a coincidence, if the increase of the C2 estimate just happens to be the GCA C1 number? ****** Agreed. I'm not sure I see the reason they would be so specific in attempting to quantify the possible increase. My interpretation would be that they are just trying to say that the total figure may end up being "greater than 5.3".
02-24-2016, 07:28 AM
I think it might be safe for OSH to say that they expect the CGA C1 estimate of 5.3 TCF to increase but I don't know?
02-24-2016, 07:28 AM
Also understand we don't get paid off Oil Search's slides . It's the actual reports that counts .
Oil Search today again tells us July they will have 2 new certifications. They will settle with PACLNG then and that will be a public number . It's almost March now or maybe 5 months for good numbers which will include current drilling in 2016 says Oil Search . |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

