ann out, page-63

Kezza I think Paloma is something of a catch 22 for Neon regarding publicity. Bear in mind this is purely my interpretation but from my discussions with Neon and Solimar it feels to me that they believe they have a very high liklihood of commercial success on their hands.

In part there seems to be a strong expectation that the testing of either FV or LS in PD-2 will replicate PD-1 flow results. Now given PD-2 came in on prognosis of zones and depths(BRR interview) we can tell FV/LS is continuous from PD-1. The flow character ought to then be the same.

Now the risk for Neon about shouting success to early is that they have to prove that the debris inflow issues that stopped a stabilised test in PD-1 have been rectified with the completion method changes in PD-2. We won't know this for a little while yet.

Those who have participated in the CR would have info similar to what we had in the GOC presentation and the BRR interview. They would be expected to participate on the basis of that info...basically take it or leave it. But the instos (and some SI's) at least have one advantage over the man in the street. They would have their own analysts and specialist consultants perform a risk asessment of Paloma and other projects and closely scrutinise the POS (possibility of success).Their inhouse analysis would be used to peer review any lead broker analysis and commentary and all material from Neon. They would come to their own conclusion, compare it to their risk profile for a share of this kind and then decline or participate as the case may be.

Potential SP price mover time points would be estimated into their risk analysis.

I think I've gone off in a bit of a tangent to your question Kezza but hope this helps.