artemis boundary, page-49

Hi mrmoshe

I was wondering if anybody else would notice that anomaly.

Let us look at the chronological order of events:

The original farm-in document was released 25 Oct, 2007 and can be found here where it states:

'In any of these permits, if MEO decides to fund 100% of the cost of a single well, a 70% interest will have been earned. However, if the existing permit holders elect to pay 10% of the cost of a single well in any permit, the MEO interest in that permit would remain at 60%.

MEO secured a 12 month extension to the farmin 28 December 2008. The ASX release is here.

This clearly states that the share of 360-P is still 60% MEO, 20% CUE & 20% Gascorp.

Mention was made of the proposed acquisition of further 3D seismic of Artemis but no mention was made of the cost structure of the project.

This was clarified in the 26 Feb 2009 December 2008 half yearly report where, on page 3 it states:

'In consideration MEO agreed to acquire an additional 175SqKm 3D seismic data in 360-P.'

Then on 10 Mar 2009 the reference to the increase to 70% is stated in their 'ASX AND MEDIA RELEASE' here.

In it is this statement:

'The 3D survey is expected to cost approximately US$3.4m including processing. MEO is paying 90% of this cost in consideration for extending its drill/drop option for WA-360-P to 31st December 2009. MEOs working interest in WA-360-P increases to 70% by contributing 90% of the cost of the Artemis 3D survey.'

This is the first reference to the costs involved and appears to contradict the original extension terms.

It does also state the 'regulatory approvals have now been received for the acquisition of approximately 250 km2'. This is an increase of 75sq km from the original 175 sq km requirement noted in the extension document.

In the same document is another statement:

'WA-360-P is strategically located in close proximity to the 5-train North West Shelf Gas Project (16.3 Mtpa) as well as both the Pluto LNG project (4.3 Mtpa) currently under construction and the proposed Wheatstone LNG project (10 Mtpa) under consideration. The latter have both indicated there is room for 3rd party gas, indicating that any gas discovered in WA-360-P is likely to have a ready path to market.'

This is an indication, but not a commitment, of a potential market for any gas.

#Note This was probably the reason WPL was at the top of the list as the PF in the MEOmite forum and is still the front-runner in Plan B, if needed.

Each subsequent release during 2009 noted the PPs share of 360-P as being MEO 70%, CUE 15% and MOG 15%.

On 21 Dec MEO confirmed that 'MEO has triggered its option to fund the Permit Year 5 (commencing 1st February 2010)commitment well in WA-360-P, completing its farm-in for a 70% interest in the Permit with Rankin Trend Pty Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of Moby Oil and Gas, ASX: MOG) and Cue Exploration Pty Ltd (ASX: CUE).'

No mention was made about the other permit holders' option to pay 10% of the cost of a single well which was in the original farm-in document. I feel this was negated by the acquisition of the 3D seismic in 2009.

But maybe this has something to do with the 'status quo' being discussed, as it may affect CUE's percentage. Whatever the case the flow of informative documentation leaves something to be desired.

On the other hand, it has nothing to do with 'the proposed amendments (which) disadvantage Cue and its shareholders relative to the status quo.'

Just my thoughts only.

#:>))