In response to you post (no issues with), and also to piwi33 (no...

In response to you post (no issues with), and also to piwi33 (no issues with) and our gas opportunity in Mongolia.

Have you read the latest that Jade has just put out for BN more than selective and misleading to SH. The seams at BN are circa 60 degree dip and likely, highly likely, they are drilling down the seam not through it, the geological in the UHG pit at BN is very challenging. It reminds me of our what was it carbonaceous coal/mudstone its not real it padding for GIP not reserves.

What we need is what is the actual thickness of the target coals we will look to recover gas from, their measured gas content, saturation and permeability, and hopefully we can improve on earlier reported data when we had 125mD ? was it as its looking very much like as stated at the time its the fractures not the cleat hence the earlier gas shown and now the water.

The selectively reported geological information from the CBM explorers is backing up what the miners find in the unpredictability of coals in Mongolia and high variation both within the same basins between adjacent seams and adjacent basins; its very difficult to extrapolate results from one to another and their are multiply seam splits and ply's.

All is not what is reported, geologically Mongolia is rather unique I am told by geologists who have worked there and particularly in the south Gobi TT area which is us.

Tui if you are speaking to NY ask him where we are on the gas water curve as we should be able to plot with all our results to date and in-house experience and then that will give a timeline to a deliverable.