Niu,Thanks for bringing that to my attention, had not looked...

Niu,

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, had not looked over that presentation.

After looking at that and then going back and looking over the reserves cert from Sept last year, I can see that I misinterpreted the initial statement of "a two multilateral well development scenario" as a single dual lateral well...my bad!

After I read the release yesterday and saw the word three, I assumed they had decided on a triple lateral well development, hence my explanation.

You are correct, the development scenario depicted in the preso shows 3 x dual lateral wells.

The US$250M does include contingency (from memory), but it is clear from that preso that that cost estimate is only in relation to Phase 1 CAPEX.

If they drill a third dual lateral well (A9) as they say is being considered for a Phase II development, that would indeed attract a separate budget, but I suspect A9 would only be a part of that Ph II dev budget.

It is evident in that preso depiction that A9 is also intended to drain the primary Linapacan Limestone (LLS) and not the Intermediate (ILS), or clastic (GCU)reservoirs above the primary, so it is possible that the draining of the ILS and the GCU could also be part of a Ph II development.

It could be as simple as sidetracking out of A7 and A8 (and A9) into the ILS and the GCU, or it could be more complex.
There is no clear indication at this stage of the intention.

No doubt they'll run logs on the ILS and the GCU sections when drilling the initial dual laterals to try and determine commerciality.