Hi Ya, Aussie, I was having a similar conversation yesterday...

Hi Ya, Aussie,

I was having a similar conversation yesterday with SP_Oiler a Geologist on LSE. I was trying to speculate what the Chances Of Success (COS) might be for conventional compared to our 50% COS for unconventional. Can we use the data from Icewine #1 and the evidence from Great Bear or other local data to build the case for both prospects? SP suggested the COS for Alpha would still be significantly less than 25% Perhaps we would need a test well in the centre of Alpha as opposed to right on the edge to get us to that point. But if Icewine #2 flows at the edge of Alpha then we might be more convinced that Alpha is itself viable as well as the wider unconventional.

How would we determine if the flow was attributable to the wider unconventional or to the local Alpha prospect? and conversely would the presence of the local prospect detract from the evidence that the wider unconventional is viable?

I am keen, as are others, to put this line of questioning to DW and get his take on what we need to do to get Alpha to the same COS as we are with unconventional. My problem is, of course, that not being a geologist I am uncertain that the logic of my assumptions behind my questioning is sound enough to phrase such questions in a way that DW can answer.

Some help from geologists would be very welcome.

[email protected]

Tim