potential, potential., page-21

rocket boy says: "on the 07/04/10, TR states; "For those, like me, who baulk a bit at the concept of 3P reserves, remember we are talking a 3C resource here. By definition currently there are no reserves. This resource may not be there at all (although I doubt that)"."

What exactly is your point? There are no reserves in Lingo's Folly. I know you think there are but there aren't. What there is is an inferred resource. "Inferred" means it may or may not be there and that's what I said didn't I? Now most pholk here know the difference between a "resource" and a "reserve". You obviously don't despite my repeatedly pointing it out to you- read the documentation provided regarding Lingo's Folly and look up the "Definitions" section. (I know it will be quite difficult for you but the effort will repay you insofar as you may realise what you've been stating is totally false and what I've been saying is totally correct.)

rocket boy continues: "So, Beach, Santos and ICN are all idiots to go all out for the deep CSG in the Cooper are they, or is it in your opinion that it's folly TR or do you doubt it?."

Now leaving aside the garbled syntax I'll try and address this (once more). I'll refer you to post 5435961 ( http://www.hotcopper.com.au/post_single.asp?fid=1&tid=1188914&msgid=6676025 ) where I make the point that the ascertion that STO and BPT are going "all out for the deep CSG in the Cooper" is false. You didn't address the points raised then so why am I surprised that you raise this falsehood once more?"

The facts as shown in the presentations I cited then are that STO don't rate the Cooper a mention in their plans. (Not to say it isn't a twinkle in some boffin's head, just that, in the context of their business it is insignificant.) BPT DO mention it but as one of four areas which could provide significant growth in the long term. They stress that they are retaining their existing conventional portfolio in Australia and overseas and, indeed, developing that as two of their areas for long term growth. ICN you hadn't mentioned at that time but their approach is similar to BPT, ie deep Cooper is one of several potential long term growth areas. You DID mention another couple of companies but I can't be bothered finding the citation. One was directly analogous to BPT in their appproach, the other a very large operation vaguely analogous to STO but with both upstream and downstream assets. Neither could reasonably be argued to be going "all out for the deep CSG in the Cooper". GOG on the other hand have repeatedly stated that all non Deep Cooper assets are to be disposed of and funds ploughed into Lingo's Folly. Of the five companies you've cited NONE are going "all out for the deep CSG in the Cooper", only GOG!

rocket boy continues: "make up your mind TR, a good play or folly."

You must be one of the most dim-witted characters imaginable rocket boy! AS I discussed at some length in the post cited above, (and studiously ignored by you) and on several other occasions, (again studiously ignored by you), the reason this play is a Folly lies not in the play itself- although I see numerous serious issues there (which you refuse to acknowledge. Do I need to repost those posts for you?) The folly lies in disposing of a diverse suite of quality assets to fund the initial stages of a high risk exploration venture to the exclusion of all else (as shown by the success this week in that relict asset the Naccowlah Block!).

And finally rocket boy: "i (sic) see you still hold. Why?"

I have substantially reduced my holding in this stock, (I was a top 200 shareholder; (not enough "skin in the game" though according to barney!)); and will reduce it further should the opportunity arise. I still hold because it has neither reached the point where I intend to reduce further, nor has the SP been downstroyed to my stop loss point. That should be obvious even to you. (Plus, as pigs/tib (Post #: 5464529) commented "many here have an attachment to this old girl" and, having held stock since the public float I guess I'm one of them! (I won't touch on your inference to have held stock longer than me again shall I?)

TR