40mcf estimate and petrocci increases stake , page-29

G-3 was not a failure.

In that case I would hate to see your opinion of a failure!

RIA changed their tune mid-song when their development well turned into an appraisal well that wasn't successful. Now you're claiming it was always planned to be an appraisal well to test for P10 upside - that which, by definition, had only a 10% probability of being there!

Pretty strange decision for a capitally constrained company that needs early cashflow, isn't it? Why not drill the development well first and then test for upside later?

Answer: because P-3 was always intended to be a development well. All the presentations referred to it in that way. Even when it did turn up dry they tried to spin it to make it sound like it wasn't a disappointment.

As for not flow testing, why flow test when there is no need and they want to save the cash.

I find that a pretty bizarre statement... Flow testing does not cost much compared to the cost of drilling the well. And it is critical because it is the ONLY true measure of how much the well will deliver. You can make all the permeability measurements you want with RFTs etc but until you flow test the well you really don't know how it's going to perform.

I didn't listen to the conference call so will defer to you on Chouette.