YaqThanks. I had another look at it just now and i remembered...

Yaq

Thanks. I had another look at it just now and i remembered that at the time of those first Contingent Resource estimates when I read that I interpreted it differently.

What I assumed they were saying was that of the CR being estimated at that time 85% was within the Bohena ... because that's what they had the most data on! That's not the same as 85% of the 17 Tcf of GIP in PEL 238(estimated years ago) that could potentially become CR and eventually also reserves. I assumed they had relatively little information on the Hoskisson seam at that point and as the announcement said they were at that time focussing on the Bohena. They were making the point that much of that estimated contingent resource could "soon" become reserves because they were focussing on the Bohena. It was "tricky" wording but deliberately intended to give that impression.

I find it hard to belive that the reality is that the Hoskisson seam (being tested at Tintsfield) which is more widespread in PEL 238 than the Bohena and is in the range of 5-12m thick (comapred to 15-30m for the Bohena) will eventually only account for 10% of PEL 238's resource (the other 5% being the Namoi).

That's just my interpretation of course and we should be asking ESG for a clear explanation of what resource they anticipate from each of the seams.

H