extremely bullish after bouncing off support, page-36

Please have a read of these links. While CSEM data supplements 3D data it is not 100% conclusive. MTEM surveys are much more accurate but still subject to interpretation.

http://www.pgs.com/upload/194767/TechLink43_MTEM.pdf

http://www.emgs.com/_assets/documents/Laws_of_attraction_001.pdf

Quote “If you collect EM data over the same prospect and you see an
anomaly that you think is related to hydrocarbons, you have a direct
hydrocarbon indicator (DHI). Depending on how good the DHI is, you
will de-risk your prospect, and the chance of success will increase. But
there will always be a chance of a false negative (EM data does not
give a response although there are hydrocarbons present) or a false
positive (EM data shows a response that is not related to hydrocarbons
but something else). This complicates the analysis and challenges
the exploration geoscientists.

If the CESM was the be all to end all, I'm sure companies would skip the more expensive 3D surveys & go straight to CSEM surveys.

Instead CSEM & 3D they are used in conjunction with each other. Different software used by different companies & interpretation by their geologists in analysing all this data will obviously give different results, in my view, leading to different decisions to drill or not.

Also if the CSEM data was as definitive as you guys are thinking & deemed worthless if Shell pull out, why would it be an option condition that the data is returned to FAR? My guess is to keep Shell honest & also for future interpretation by FAR & other partners.

We shouldn't under estimate the importance of the latest 3D seismic survey which has identified these plays to begin. The importance of 3D seismic data is emphasized by several experts in one of the links above.

As in my earlier post Shell with all their expertise got it wrong, when interpreting 3D data, by not drilling in the neighbouring block so I don't think they'll risk this again.