Melbourne 88e'rs, page-248

Alet, IMO zero chance!

The so called 2.5D is in-line data from SAE's 3D shoot undertaken last year (by them - we din't commission it). That data has been acquired only around the Ice#2H drill site, so speculation is that it pertains to that exercise - i.e. getting the best possible flow test. Later 2D interpretations (based on work we commissioned this year) that is expected over coming weeks, are likely to indicate extent of the HRZ thermal maturity sweetspot (as well as point to any potential traps above the HRZ that may potentially contain conventional hydrocarbons).

The biggest difference between the IRR and the PB estimate was the size of the sweetspot: 42% versus 70% (from memory). From my understanding, the IRR was based on 'probabilistic' criteria (ie from other plays around the globe) while the PB estimate was based on 'deterministic' criteria (ie from PB's interpretation of the Icewine geology and drawing inferences from plays with comparable geological criteria).

IMO, nothing short of further appraisal wells around the acreage, to back up indications from seismic, would allow an 'independent' assessor to accept the deterministic model.

As for conventional - that is a different exercise.

GLTA.