Thanks 504Found it.So, although South Fish had the better...

Thanks 504

Found it.

So, although South Fish had the better prospects they might have decided against it as the survey states:

Advent Energy Offshore Sydney Basin South Fish site survey

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”