suspension, page-5

Pawnking I think we all feel cynical about what has happened (or not happened!).

With Ryder Scott it does feel like groundhog day so it would be nice if things were at least a little different this time around. They certified reserves for the CO2 flood as 3P in 2008 because reserve definitions require successful testing by a pilot program before they can be classified as proven.

I'm sure it will be the same this time but there is a chance it may be different. Here is an extract from the reserve definitions for eor:

Reserves which are to be produced through the application of established improved recovery methods are included in the proved classification when (1) successful testing by a pilot project or favorable response of an installed program in the same or an analogous reservoir with similar rock and fluid properties provides support for the analysis on which the project was based, and, (2) it is reasonably certain that the project will proceed.

We dont have a pilot project, but the Thompson Creek field in Powder River Basin produces from the Muddy with a chemical flood. The quarterly report in July 2009 stated:

Whilst it is recognised that the characteristics of the Thompson Creek field and its fluid properties are not an exact analog for the Grieve field, the development approach, technology used and management employed to achieve its proven success are ones that Elk is looking to emulate and to use as its analog.

It will come down to how similar the properties are between the two fields. If RS think they are similar enough then they could be classified as 1P or 2P.

But I don't think we will be that lucky!