denbury webcast, page-4

Still not much response to my post particularly in relation to the following point:

- On slide 19, Grieve is noted as having an estimated 6MMBbls of probable and possible reserves;

My understanding is that the amount of at least 12MMBbls quoted in ELK presentations for the Grieve field is a figure PROVIDED BY DENBURY based on their experience with similar EOR projects they have commenced.

So why did they agree to pay for at least '12MMBbls' as part of the JV agreement but only disclose 6MMBbls in their own presentation? 6MMBbls also seems unusually low for a Co2 EOR project especially when the estimated original oil in place is supposed to be more than 75MMBbls. That's a recovery of only 8%.

If i'm not mistaken, the company believes that there is more than 75MMBbls at Grieve.

Interested to hear other's thoughts on reasons why Denbury may choose to understate the estimated reserves at Grieve.