A couple of thoughts and considerations.Going from prospective...

A couple of thoughts and considerations.
Going from prospective to contingent with the additional wells one could believe that the uncertainty has reduced possibly significantly, its that percentage that gets multiplied with the total estimated volume, before a recovery factor is applied, so it definitely could increase here.

It also depends on what input parameters were use for prospective volumes, like thickness, gas content etc. we now have range of roughly 6 to 50ish meters in thickness, does that straddle the number used in determine the prospective volumes, if so, no change here, if more... you get the drift, as shareholders we are not privy to that kind of data.

And finally, you ask for an estimation of the numbers, because of the above this is not reliably possible, not enough data in the public domain.

Having said all of that, I would be seriously surprised if the numbers would be less, the results are too good, and the auditor would have always taken an more conservative approach in the first round.

Personally I would expect a set of numbers reflecting contingent resources as well as prospective volumes. When these numbers have been generated statistically (say low, mid, high range) you can't simply add them, however when generated deterministicaly you can add them.

Hope this sort of helps