Ann: 11.02.07 Amadeus Basin Unconventional Indepe, page-24

re: Ann: 11.02.07 Amadeus Basin Unconventiona... bozzle,

You're exactly right. I'm not dismissing the report, in fact the authors themselves write it there plain as day when they say how uncertain the estimates are.

I'm not sure how anybody could interpret my saying "it's a potential analogue to the great North American shale basins" as a negative. What more could you ask for?

For the record I have nothing but respect for MBA, I know a lot of their staff. I don't know the other companies but I'm sure they're reputable.

I'm just saying before anyone gets carried away that you can use this report as a QUALITATIVE report (ie "this is a good opportunity for shale oil and gas and deserves further work") but that using it as a QUANTITATIVE report (ie "there are 1.08 billion barrels of recoverable oil in here") is risky because there is so much uncertainty.

I have done GIP estimates like this before and when you've got limited data points you really are just guessing some of these numbers. And if you guess just one of those numbers badly wrong, the entire calculation can be badly wrong. The P10 and P90 case are SUPPOSED to cover for that eventuality, but it depends how badly wrong you get the numbers.

As happened in the CSG report. They got their gas content estimate wrong by at least an order of magnitude and it cost CTP over $10M to find that out.