conference call link, page-6

Thanks fot that link.

I thought the call was pretty good actually.

I think their PR running up to this programme was incorrect as G-3 was always an appraisal which was to be suspended as a producer so I think they got this wrong. The way I know this, is G-3 was due to test the P10 upside of the UC1 which obviously failed to materialise, so the likely scenario is the P50 is correct which I was using for my calculations anyway (as I always do) so no real change there then. The real key (and Jeff did raise this)is that if the ST fails to penetrate a good reservoir for UC1 then their P50 may then also be stuffed and we may be heading to a P90 scenario which wouldn't be good. This is the reason why they are sidetracking to close to IVCO-14, because they now believe that the P50 is the likely scenario so heading back to the known reservoir.

All in all, the gazelle field sounds complicated, and similar to other fields in the region. They stated that the produceability was not the reason for this appraisal programme, so this may mean that they do not do flow tests, but the objective was to firm up the volumetrics in each individual reservoir. They were testing the UC-1 in G-3 and they wanted to tie in as a producer into the UC-1C reservoir as this is where they expect to produce from first and would be beneficial to have these wells ready to go when they go to the banks for project financing.

G-4 will be testing 2 different reservoirs in the UC2 rather than the UC1.

All in all, I feel better about this now, but still think their communications running into the programme were wrong stating development drilling. It should always have been stated as appraisal with the potential to suspend as producers.