Boysy,
I am aware of the discrepancy between BYE and OEL SM71 reserves.
Another glaring error in your deductive ability.Unlike yourself, I like to get to the bottom of things, rather than jump to incorrect conclusions,IHence, wrote to Steve Herod on August 2nd, 2023.
In response, Steve Herod (and Mark Lindh) arranged a Zoom (M/S Teams) meeting that took place at 8am, August 15th,2023.
My correspondence to Steve Herod follows:
Hi Steve (hopefully my guess of your e-mail is correct),
Mike (in case this e-mail doesn’t make it to anyone else,although I’m happy for you to get involved)
info@ottoenergy (in case it is being monitored now),
Ref SM71 2020 BYE 6.0MMboe vs OEL 3.8 MMboe Net 3P Reserves
Discrepancy of 2.2 is MMboe
About Me
My name is xxxxxxxxxxxxx; my mobile is xxxxxxxxxxxx;
I have followed Otto Energy for several years, and onlyrecently started accumulating after the release of the 2022 Annual Report inOctober 2023.
Current Shareholding
My Otto Energy holding is in xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I currently own just over xxx million shares (about x.xx%of Otto), up from the xxx million held at the date of the most recentquarterly.
Discrepancy Overview
Bryon Net 3Pis 6.0MMboe as at June30th, 2020
Otto Net 3P 3.8 MMboe a at June 30th, 2020
Bothcompanies have an NRI of 40.065%
Otto's 3P is 2.2 MMboe less than Byon's 3P.
Bryon's3P figure is 58.75% higher than Otto's.
There isalso a very large discrepancy in their respective Prospective Resourceestimates,
My primary concern is that Otto is marketing SM71based on Reserves and Resources substantially below the true figure or mostlikely figure (as reported by Byron Energy).
Thisdiscrepancy continued in the 2021 Reserve Reports with both companies makingcomparable relatively small negative revisions (Otto slightly more). Ottoused Ryder Scott in 2021 and 2022. I believe that the change to RyderScott may have been a financing requirement. Again, I am not sure.
Ibelieve that the discrepancy continued into the 2022 Reserve Reports. Byron didn't report SM71 separately, so I can't be absolutely certain.
Ibelieve that the most likely reason for the discrepancy is the quality of theseismic dataset being used by Ryder Scott versus Byron's much higher qualitydataset (provided by WesternGeCo) being used by Collarini Associates.
I wouldimagine that compilation of Reserve Reports would be based on a standardisedset of methodologies.
Thiswould be a requirement in order to give investors and industry participantsconfidence in the data being presented.
ForReserve reports, it follows that Independent Expert Reports from differentproviders should be relatively close.
The 58%difference between Ryder Scott and Collarini wouldn't meet the essential"credibility and reliability" test.
However,the fact that they are using different datasets would be a credible explanationfor such a large variance.
| Comparison of 2020 Reserves | Byron Net | Otto Net | BYE - OEL |
|---|
| 1 | OIL |
|
|
|
|---|
| 2 | Proved (1P) | 1,992 | 1,251 | 741 |
|---|
| 3 | Probable Reserves | 2,079 | 671 | 1,408 |
|---|
| 4 | Proved and Probable (2P) | 4,071 | 1,922 | 2,149 |
|---|
| 5 | Possible Reserves | 1,275 | 1,304 | (29) |
|---|
| 6 | Proved, Probable & Possible (3P) | 5,346 | 3,226 | 2,120 |
|---|
| 7 | Total Prospective Resources |
|
|
|
|---|
| 8 | Best Estimate (unrisked) | 976 | 313 | 663 |
|---|
| 9 | GAS |
|
|
|
|---|
| 10 | Proved (1P) | 1,341 | 1,051 | 290 |
|---|
| 11 | Probable Reserves | 1,590 | 490 | 1,100 |
|---|
| 12 | Proved and Probable (2P) | 2,931 | 1,541 | 1,390 |
|---|
| 13 | Possible Reserves | 963 | 1,764 | (801) |
|---|
| 14 | Proved, Probable & Possible (3P) | 3,894 | 3,305 | 589 |
|---|
| 15 | Total Prospective Resources |
|
|
|
|---|
| 16 | Best Estimate (unrisked) | 19,813 | 345 | 19,468 |
|---|
| 17 | MBOE (6:1) |
|
|
|
|---|
| 18 | Proved (1P) | 2,216 | 1,426 | 789 |
|---|
| 19 | Probable Reserves | 2,344 | 753 | 1,591 |
|---|
| 20 | Proved and Probable (2P) | 4,560 | 2,179 | 2,381 |
|---|
| 21 | Possible Reserves | 1,436 | 1,598 | (163) |
|---|
| 22 | Proved, Probable & Possible (3P) | 5,995 | 3,777 | 2,218 |
|---|
| 23 | Total Prospective Resources |
|
|
|
|---|
| 24 | Best Estimate (unrisked) | 4,278 | 371 | 3,908 |
|---|
Otto'ssignificant 2020 revisions.
| 2020 OTTO |
|
|
|
|
|---|
| 1 | Oil (Mbbl) | Remaining 6/30/2019 | Production 2019 | Additions & Revisions | Remaining 6/30/2020 |
|---|
| 2 | Proved (1P) | 2,080 | 378 | (451) | 1,251 |
|---|
| 3 | Probable | 2,278 | | (1,608) | 670 |
|---|
| 4 | Proved+Probable (2P) | 4,358 | 378 | (2,058) | 1,922 |
|---|
| 5 | Possible | 1,092 | | 212 | 1,304 |
|---|
| 6 | Proved+Probable+ | 5,450 | 378 | (1,847) | 3,225 |
|---|
| 7 | Gas (MMCF) | Remaining 6/30/2019 | Production 2019 | Additions & Revisions | Remaining 6/30/2020 |
|---|
| 8 | Proved (1P) | 1,581 | 338 | (191) | 1,052 |
|---|
| 9 | Probable | 1,473 | | (983) | 490 |
|---|
| 10 | Proved+Probable (2P) | 3,054 | 338 | (1,175) | 1,541 |
|---|
| 11 | Possible | 756 | | 1,008 | 1,764 |
|---|
| 12 | Proved+Probable+ | 3,810 | 338 | (167) | 3,305 |
|---|
| 13 | MBOE | Remaining 6/30/2019 | Production 2019 | Additions & Revisions | Remaining 6/30/2020 |
|---|
| 14 | Proved (1P) | 2,343 | 434 | (483) | 1,426 |
|---|
| 15 | Probable | 2,524 | | (1,771) | 753 |
|---|
| 16 | Proved+Probable (2P) | 4,867 | 434 | (2,254) | 2,179 |
|---|
| 17 | Possible | 1,218 | | 380 | 1,598 |
|---|
| 18 | Proved+Probable+ | 6,085 | 434 | (1,874) | 3,777 |
|---|
Thefollowing commentary from Otto's 2020 Reserves report, to my non-expert eye,doesn't seem to explain the magnitude of the downward revisions in the report(and summarised in the above table).
Whathappened in 2020.
ByronReserve Report Released
10Sept 2020 - BYE Net Reserves and Resources at 30 June 2020
4 dayslater Mike Utsler appointed CEO and MD.
14 Spet 2020APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
10 dayslater Otto released 2020 Reserves Report
24 Sept 2020 OELANNUAL RESERVES AND RESOURCES STATEMENT
Otto'sSM71 3P Reserves were 2.2 MMboe lower than Byron's.
1 day later Byron issued their explanation for this significant difference.
25Sept 2020 BYE SM71 Reserve Statement and Clarification
In anutshell, Byron stated that
- Prior to 2020, Otto and Byron both used Collarini Associates, and both reports were based on the Byron's sophisticated dataset.
- In 2020 Otto decided to use Collarini Energy Experts. A company that has no affiliation with Corallni Associates.
My comment:
- This was a very traumatic time for Otto: they were broke; nearly went belly up; management change; etc.. I suspect that the decision to dump the previous Byron-Otto shared process may have been to save money.
- It is plausible, during this period of upheaval, that Otto intended to employ Corallini Associates using Otto's older dataset, and perhaps inadvertently contacted and contracted the similarly named Corallini Energy Experts.
- Byron claim that their proprietary seismic is superior to that used to compile Otto's reserve report.
This is obviously the case.
Byron make the point that SM71 is an old field, and it was not until BYE, using their proprietary seismic processing that the current producing accumulations were identified as having potential. - There is a significant difference in interpretation of the F5 well result.
(20min delay)
