qtrly, page-41

Au, this is only my opinion so please take with grain of salt.

There was an old unit for the Cris IV and the application was to dissolve this and establish a new one which dropped a chunk of Section 54 and S56 from the original unit. That application was denied so my guess is the old unit stands. That could explain where the non participant property is. Once drilling is complete they may reapply with additional geological info to support the original application but I am only guessing.

If you look at the leases in the qtly there are common Desiree/Louise leases, I think these are the Cris II, III and V units and they may represent the different properties. Louise is in much the same pool as Desiree so most of the sands are the same but the Cris IV target looks different but I think was tested in Desiree.

I understand people's frustration and that frustration was also noted by mgt in the qtly. From a commercial big picture the drilling doesn't really matter to me as the other wells are profitable and generating enough cash to cover costs and also fund future development. Obviously delays effect market sentiment which is a concern as it looks like inactivity but most of the real work is done in the background and details of negotiations/agreements are likely to be confidential.

I hope this is useful but remember this opinion is based on my research and may be incorrect, I don't ask or get any info from the coy and prefer to be independent and hopefully objective. I am more positive than I post but also recognize limits in my analysis and prefer to be cautious.

PS. Desiree was a little different as they appeared to have the units established before the spud but drilling may have identified another pay zone which wasn't unitised. It was a good result to find more oil but the delay was a pain. Long term though the reserve was higher than anticipated and worth the wait I guess.

We are in good shape I think but this is not a trading stock so pays to be cautious in these times imo.

Cheers