re: Ann: Presentation at CSG 2011 Conference,... goodaye Occam...

re: Ann: Presentation at CSG 2011 Conference,... goodaye Occam and gassed,
i must say i read the preso but ignored that slide.
so after reading your various posts i was intrigued, and went back and had a look.

I think that ICN has stuffed it up (yet again)!
That Slide is just either, plain wrong, or misleading?

I agree, it shows a cube - 10x10x10 - and i think that refers to the first number being 1,000 c/ft or 1mcf.

then underneath that they just have "...x10 = 1,000,000 cft

well what a stuff up - because I look at that slide and think that next line means 10x10x10x10 ? But 10x10x10x10 = 10,000 not 1 million ?!
But the slide is not even consistent in its inconsistency!
Why present 1,000 c/ft as 1mcf, then not present 1,000,000 as MMCF as most O&G coys do?

If they meant 10 to power of 3, or 4, or 5 or whatever, they should present it that way.

ANyway, it just a kick in the guts on the credibility stakes imho. But hey, RJ is only being paid $600,000 p/a - so what do we expect.
Sorry, I know I am being cynical.

Occam- I expect that the slide was put together in a hurry, and someone just did a sloppy job- because it is sloppy - but nothing major rides on it imho.

the other point which I first brought up was ICN claim of 20TCF of "recoverable gas".
So I went back and had a read of BPT preso's:
On 4 May BPT preso says "PEL-218 (Permian JV) potential shale gas in place 40-80 Tcf"
Those numbers are repeated in April preso also.

So I guess the issue is are we talking about the same measure? I think not.

Whilst I am thinkng that it is an important issue (that being "potential shale gas in place" vs "recoverable gas") - we may be missing the point I was alluding to.

I have no doubt that the resource that BPT thinks is represented by the potential of the shale gas in the Napp Trough is absolutely bloody huge !
And I think that BPT thinks the geology is better than the US shale dirt.
SO I think that BPT (and ICN) are realising that this Trough represents a huge potential resource that they are fighting over.
And my point in the opening post was that ICN have , for the first time, represented to us, that the potential resource in ATP855 represents about 30% of the total resource in PEL218 and ATP855 !?
Thats what i wa sgetting at.
To me, 30% is a big % of the total, and explains why both BPT and ICN feel its worth going to court!

PS PS PS:
Having read info from BPT, ICN and DLS wrt their potential resources in C/B - and reading info from STO regarding their need for gas for GLNG, and the profits generated from the later LNG trains, it seems to me we are missing the point here !!!???

Here we have the worlds biggest LNG players committing to spend huge huge $ to build LNG plants, but they need gas.
The CSG fields have not yet proven reserves, so now shale gas in C/B appears to me to be looking like an insurance policy option.
All these issues seem to be coming together.
CSG extraction may be an issue on environmental grounds - at least it could be delayed by politics of Greens maybe.

SO here we have BPT showing that their Holdfast and Encounter wells in C/B have very large sequences of shale - far bigger than they initially thought.
They say C/B shale better than/= to US shale plays.
Shale gas already proven technology.
Shale gas in C/B has got the scale needed
Shale gas in C/B close to existing infrastructure.
Obviously STO already believes piping C/B gas to Gladstone is viable.

So I think we are on the cusp of something really big here.

And ICN ATP855 is right in the guts of the equation!

DLS has a preso on ASX today which I have not yet read. But I will.
I think DLS has also got substantial acreage which is prospective for Shale gas. BPT is a partner of DLS also.

So we have all these common denominators in play - and the $ are so huge !

These coys, particularly BPT would be way ahead of us in their planning - and we s/h are in the dark, because they are only plans or concepts.
So we poor HC posters need to try and figure out where all this is heading.

I am thinking that we should consider all this commonality and confluence of events and possible needs of the "big boys", because something is going to happen big time once BPT provide enough assurance that shale gas in the C/B is a viable proposition!

I am unsure where that leaves ICN, but we have at least 40% and maybe 80% of that 30% !!!!

cheers