crucial fact, page-67

Yes Everett you have been pretty consistent in your message about the reserves. But you have not and cannot point to the basis upon which they have been calculated.

Talking repeatedly about the number of dry wells that have been drilled means absolutely nothing if you dont know how those results were factored into the reserves calculations.

I note you state:

"I agree that I cannot make a definitive statement that the reserves will be downgraded as I am not in a position to engage a reserve report from a known reserves consultant over these assets though the dry wells that have been drilled cannot be speculated away."

At least you are prepared to admit you cannot make that definitive statement. But unfortunately when you go on to say "though. The dry wells that have been drilled cannot be speculated away." is just that - speculation - if you cannot state how those results were factored into the reserves calculations.

And I dont know why you keep roping in the GS deal as an argument that the reserves should be downgraded. in fact I could easily argue the exact opposite to your points, i.e.:

1. GS have bought into the shallow dome wells. This is proof that the reserves must be as good as reported because they've seen the data and so otherwise why would they invest, and

2. Production is increasing, with an increasing % of well results leading to active producing wells rather than plugged wells, so the reserves report is substantiated and in fact will probably be upgraded.

I guess all I have to do is repeat it often enough, like a mantra, and maybe nobody will question my definitive statements...

Cheers, Sharks.