I have noticed that ARQ has become increasingly stingy in their...

I have noticed that ARQ has become increasingly stingy in their drilling reports over recent times and I'm not sure what to make of it. It doesn't seem to serve the mkt's best interest because they regularly now withhold details that would make a fully informed mkt. I could come up with numerous examples to support this claim but all the Canning wells to date have exemplified this 'give them little and keep it ambiguous' philosophy. Some examples from todays Yulleroo report include: Q1: Has the well reached absolute total depth (TD) or just 'current depth' where the DST-1 is being conducted? Q2: If TD, then why has the well reached TD at much shallower depth than the expected TD in spud announcement (3500m)? Q3: How much gross reservoir is present?

Remember the oil shows in the shallower section (Anderson Fm) at Stokes B? If you read the 15 Jan '08 open briefing Eric describes it this way:"..where there is a probable five metres net oil reservoir.." . We never got that in any drilling report; the sort of place you'd expect that detail.

I remember the reporting style used (also by Eric, just as today) in the Hovea discovery. They divulged all sorts of detailed information. Why keep this stuff quiet?? Nobody's going to sue anybody!