interesting read, page-6

sbatt,

That is an unusual investment philosophy. Sounds like are better suited to be a member of the greens than in business.

In summary, you don't wish to contribute capital to your company to advance its business prospects, are actively promoting a slow down in operations and constantly concerned with the price falling.

There are a plethora of reasons why none of this makes sense. You have invested your hard earned money into metgasco, not metsolarco.

As for the methane readings "confirming" fugitives emissions, the dodgy graph and lack of information provided by the scientists looks like it has the qualifying credibility for today tonight. Mostly hype and hyperbole and very little information as to how the data was collected, where it was from, and how long they spent in each area.

Quantity wise, it was suggesting they got some readings around double the background methane levels, with some peaks at 3-4 times normal. So where does it come from? No information on where they actually took them from or how long they were there. I tried searching for the published work of dr santos and there was none. Professionally why he has done this is very very curious. The paper had not been published nor has the information been released. The preliminary nature of the discussion has been completely hijacked by today tonights leigh sales and blown into certified research. No wonder people have trouble trusting science!

So to get a left and right of arc of how bad/good this is lets take a slice if land tara, chinchilla to dalby. About 4000km2.

If we make some wild plucks that methane was leaking at a rate of 1ppm per 6 hour periods in order to feed before removal of the concentrations of say 8ppm, as were indicated to have been the peak rates detected.

Over a whole year year, that is roughly 4500t of methane. At a relative carbon tax of $20/t and assumming the 100 year C cycle of ch4 giving it a ghg(e) of 25, then that is about $2.3m per year.

That might sound like a lot but it is insignificant beyond belief. To describe it in terms of just the daandine field that arrow has in the area, 90 wells cover about 1.5% of the land area I have used as a reference above. The total fugitive emissions from 100%of the area would be equivalent to just 10mscfd from these wells i.e a big buggerall.

I think it would be wishful thinking to declare that there was not gas that was fugitive in nature given the production mechanism of csg, however, this must be put tightly in context.



Cheers,

SF