CTR Fundamentals, page-8

Monark and all,

A fundamental flaw in your article, whilst still being a valid indicator is that it is more based on US oil production; in particular to the fraccing boom, which has inherently higher costs. Guatemala and many other 3rd world oil plays have the added benefit of cheaper labor, transport, personnel etc costs. So I would not be using that article to justify CTR costs.

In terms of using figures, I used the two presentations as a benchmark, and not as a cost guide in my own calculations. Again all my figures are based on their QR. My figures take all costs including E&E, admin, Development and production costs. If I only used production costs that gives me a multiple of 1.41 (65/45). Which implies we only need to increase production by 15300*1.41 equating to approx 240bopd. Again flawed as we will still be in the red with that figure.

Again, if we were to make an educated deduction, based on numbers and facts then whist production numbers will increase, E&E, admin & dev numbers should fall or remain static. This is based on the fact that the tortugas wells need only minimal work to produce. We can speculate for hours ref these costs, but again am happy with the logic behind my figures.

Monark, I look forward to your figures and always happy to check my figures.I reserve my judgements on your figures till I see them.

Regards