Sorry for the belated reply. Been busy. Also, sorry for the comment on the stale data, as I misread your initial comments when I saw your post. I do still stand by the Energy Quest comments.
The 2C ISG resource is not a straight comparison with a methane equivalent resource of a conventional or unconventional gas reservoir. You need to look at the components that are included in the 2C numbers (CH4, CO, CO2 and H2) and then adjust them to get a level playing field. Further, it is traditional to subtract fuel gas from any 2P reserve number, which again has not been applied to this figure. The amount of compression, in addition to the conversion of the CO and H2 will utilize a large volume of the syngas and therefore lower the stated amount.
For these two reasons, the 2C resource number, when converted to a 2P reserve number will suffer from these factors.
I am not being overly negative, as a reserve of that scale will be worth plenty and keep is all in Moet for years to come. I don't have an issue with the MHA report, but we need to be careful about the high side claims on the conversion from resources to reserves. Remember, there is still a few hurdles to jump before we get to the promised land.
I hope that helps.
Cheers, AL
LCK Price at posting:
10.5¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)