Ann: Advent Energy Ltd - Beach Energy Data Sharin, page-8

re: Ann: Advent Energy Ltd - Beach Energy Dat... Below is a quick extract of relevant material regarding the Fuguro Writ

14 June 2011 (Pg 27)
Site Survey- Identify drilling hazards .
Site survey is the subject of a legal dispute and court action
•Advice to site survey contractor: “....we expect to need ... a
digital seismic survey to help us identify and manage any
risk of shallow gas based on the poor quality of existing
seismic ... we would need to consider for shallow gas drilling
hazard – sea bed down to approximately 500m”
•Briefing Document .... “Digital Equipment and Acquisition
Parameters”, required that the digital survey be undertaken
using a “shot point interval” of 6.25 metres
•The Site Survey contractor undertook the survey using a
shot point interval of 12.5m. This was “...other than in the
manner” recommended by independent expert advisers .
The final seismic processing report included the following
statements: “The maximum recommended sampling interval
for this type of data was 6.25m for both shot and receiver
spacing.”
The final report on shallow gas hazards said:
1. “The level of shallow gas risk in the Permo –Triassic
sedimentary rocks can therefore not be defined in the
South Fish -1 site.”
2. “... The probability for shallow gas occurring in sequence
4 cannot be estimated from the UHR data”
3. “Caution is therefore recommended for safety when
drilling at the proposed South fish -1 well location”

http://imagesignal.comsec.com.au/docserver/01188936.pdf?fileid=01188936&datedir=20110614&edt=MjAxMy0wNC0wOCsxNToyODozNCsxMjArMCtjb21zZWMrcmVkaXJlY3QrL2ltYWdlc2lnbmFsL2Vycm9ycGFnZXMvUERGVGltZW91dC5odG1sKy9pbWFnZXNpZ25hbC9lcnJvcnBhZ2VzL3BkZmRlbGF5ZWQuanNw


9 July 2012
CLAIM BY FUGRO SURVEY PTY LTD
MEC Resources Limited (“MEC”) investee company, Advent Energy Ltd (“Advent”) has provided MEC an
update regarding the writ filed against Advent’s wholly owned subsidiary, Asset Energy Pty Ltd (“Asset”) by
Fugro Survey Pty Ltd (Fugro) in 2011.
The writ relates to a dispute between Asset and Fugro over fees in connection with site survey works
conducted by Fugro at Petroleum Exploration Permit 11 (PEP 11).
The quantum of Fugro’s claim is approximately $2.2 million. Asset is vigorously defending the claim and has
lodged a counter claim for the cost of the drilling of the New SeaCleam-1 well. .
Following a recent allegation by Fugro that RPS Energy Pty Ltd (“RPS”) authorised amendments to the
contract for the site survey works, Asset has joined RPS as a third party to the proceedings.
It is anticipated that the claim will be heard before the Western Australian courts early 2013.
MEC will continue to keep the market informed of progress.

http://imagesignal.comsec.com.au/docserver/01312641.pdf?fileid=01312641&datedir=20120709&edt=MjAxMy0wNC0wOCsxNToyODozNCsxMjArMCtjb21zZWMrcmVkaXJlY3QrL2ltYWdlc2lnbmFsL2Vycm9ycGFnZXMvUERGVGltZW91dC5odG1sKy9pbWFnZXNpZ25hbC9lcnJvcnBhZ2VzL3BkZmRlbGF5ZWQuanNw


Up to speed. MEC will not divulge where they are up to in the civil suit. What you might like to do is call the relvant Court registry, having identified the parties, who will then be able to tell you when the matter is next listed (and for what). The registry will also be able to give an indication of the timetable set by HH.

Parties will/ are required to mediate prior to a full defended hearing. Given the silence by MEC you might find that process has/ is about to commence. You have to remember, the respective insurance companies will have also filed suit. If mediation is not successful (which is a very real possibility if MEC stands firm - based on their ASX disclosures), then a full hearing may not be before the Courts until late 2013, or mosty likely mid 2014. This can be confirmed by enquiring: when are civil matters currently'being listed'.