furious with management, page-43

It isn't applicable imo. I'm guessing CNOOC backed off on their Exoma investment because their 2012 drilling results showed them it was a waste of time.

Exoma is yet to provide results from testing of shale chip samples as below, however they are due soon and one could guess that CNOOC have had a good look at these shales and decided not to proceed with a further investment in the GB. From EXE's last Activities statement

"Toolebuc Shale
The Toolebuc shale was tested by a series of four wells in ATP 999P and ATP 1005P (Sancho-1,
Scotty Creek-1, Rocky Creek-1 and Fittleworth-1) drilled specifically to recover core, or chip
samples of shale. In addition chip and/or core samples of the Toolebuc shale were recovered
from the CSG wells Culloden, Nora and Wardoo in ATP 991P.
The oil and gas content of the shale is measured by laboratory testing and analysis rather than by
well site testing. These are long-duration tests and the results are expected to become available
in early 2013.These tests will assess, amongst other things, the thermal maturity of the shale and
its capacity to expel oil and gas, the quantity of oil and gas contained in the Toolebuc shale and
surrounding rocks, and the geomechanical characteristics of the rock and its capacity as a
candidate for an effective hydraulic fracture stimulation. These are critical factors in evaluating the
commercial prospects of the shale system.
Coal Seam Gas
Three CSG exploration core wells were drilled in ATP 991P: Culloden-1, Nora-1 and Wardoo-1.
These wells tested the Betts Creek and Aramac coal measures within the Galilee Joint Venture
permit areas.
As reported previously the gas content and gas saturation of these cores was significantly lower
than expected. The geological evidence suggests that high permeability sandstones within the
coal measures have allowed the gas formed in the coal to migrate away to a significant extent."

Re today's Australian article maybe Chambers is throwing out a few lines to firstly tip toe around how his previous prediction of a deal being 'believed' to be settled between Petro and WCL hasn't been announced in the time frame he originally speculated on and secondly he may want to put some smoke in front of the previous story which hinted he had some knowledge of the deal being done when he should not...ergo this story today could be read as attempting to back peddle and muddy those assertions should someone from the asx ever seek to quizz him over how he came to know of the deal being 'believed' to be done.


Personally I think the most important fact we have to go on is that Petrochina spent a further $43 million on MPO's assets and paid for that in November and they are going to struggle to make any coin from that investment unless they proceed with a WCL proposal.

The only concern I have is that the new leadership in China is pulling back on investment in Australia and this could influence a deal being concluded with WCL..however this is speculation (and largely based on one deal being mothballed for good reason as above) and meanwhile this is dwarfed by the fact that Petrochina needs to get something moving in Qld having sunk about $3 billion into the csg sector only to find it is going to be very expensive to get any of this resource back to China. Not forgetting they could getting over $13 gj for that gas in China during this current winter. It is not hard to join a few dots and consider how Fisherman's Landing is a much cheaper proposition to develop a route for LNG bacak to China and thereby provide Petrochina and Shell with a way to export some AOE and BOW gas over the long term without committing $20 billion to Curtis Island.