thoughts on csg and energy for the future, page-20

SF,

I think you are wrong.

I was commenting on psi81's view, in the context of potential bids for the independents by the majors, that BOW was "too small".

I still hold the view that BOW is bigger than ESG on a 3P and on a 3P plus 2C basis. BOW clearly indicate their contingent resource is 2C (23 May presentation, although oddly omitted in later references), giving BOW 5267PJ, ESG 4103PJ and MEL 3416PJ.

I am still pondering how to treat ESG's interests in PELs 6, 427 and 428, but so it seems is ESG, given they are not included in ESG's website table, and probably not apples to apples.

I well understand the point you and psi81 are making about the 2P view, although that I think is a criteria subtley different to scale, but can be overstated if it hasnt been a primary focus, or not for as long a period.

As to tight, looks like psi81 wasnt referring to coventional as you thought -not sure it ranks high as the relative criteria here, and Goldilocks may prefer "wet or dry", when asessing opex and ultimate value.