ho hum, page-39

Hi kimbo

Just so everybody is clear regarding the potential size of Artemis the figures are as follows with Gas in Place (GIP) and using a 60% recoverable factor (RGIP). There are two targets, the Calypso and Legendre formations and the measuremnents are in Tcf.

Source: Artemis overview (P37).

Calypso GIP ----- RGIP

P90 ----- 7.736 --- 4.570

P50 ----- 10.632 --- 6.308

MEAN ---- 10.778 --- 6.403

P10 ----- 14.402 --- 8.378

Legendre GIP ----- RGIP


P90 ----- 5.892 --- 3.489

P50 ----- 9.168 --- 5.454

MEAN ---- 9.446 --- 5.623

P10 ---- 13.439 --- 8.001

This is based on the total estimated GIP in the Artemis prospect and doesn't include estimates in neighbouring permits.

The figures being bandied around are based on the P50 PRG over the two formations ie 6.3 + 5.5 = 11.8 Tcf.

From this MEO estimates at least a 32% Geological Chance - perhaps more.

In comparison Caterina is a fraction of Artemis and this is the only detail I can find.

Source: CUE's Quarterly report December 2009 (P9).

'Caterina is a large tilted fault block trap beneath the current seafloor shelf break. Direct hydrocarbon indicators (seismic amplitude, etc) are interpreted in several of the objectives. A single 35 metre sand in the structure in a mid case could contain approximately 4 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. Stacked
reservoir sands could contain up to 11 trillion cubic feet of gas in place in a mid case.

Cue expects to finalise a farmout around the end of the first quarter 2010.'

From this it can be seen that Caterina's mid-case recoverable gas is 4 Tcf compared to Artemis 11.8 Tcf

Caterina's 'up to 11 tcf of gas in place' has to be compared to Artemis best case of 27.4 tcf of gas in place or, if you prefer, 16.3 tcf of recoverable GIP.

Caterina's GCOS is at this stage is unknown (or has not been published) so cannot be compared to the Artemis GCOS of at least 32%.

The Artemis GCOS was from the additional work MEO did, as operator, retrieving samples from Zeus, similar formations in surrounding gas fields and extensive seismic work done.

I am not downramping CUE as they do have other assets and don't want to influence any investors to or from CUE. I especially will not get involved in any of the petty arguments that have been going on.

Rather I am trying to dispel any confusion about the comparisons between Artemis and Caterina that keep on appearing in the MEO forum.

At the same time it does show why CUE may want to use their 15% Artemis gas to add to the 4 Tcf Caterina gas which would give them 4 + 1.65 = 5.65 Tcf.

This would add to the attraction of the Caterina FO should a potential LNG plant be contemplated should the drilling of Caterina be successful.

Now that is cleared up, 85% Artemis still leaves the JV with a P50 9.35Tcf @ 32%+ GCOS for processing.

#:>))