upanchors, yr ii comment on DECC1 May 2017 03:47
reasons for 2011 XER's draft FDP to be not approved as presented were nothing to do with funders reservations and requests for an EWT, but solely to do with one individual in DECC at the time, who as stated in the letter from DECC to XER on 12/11, against XER's draft FDP submitted on 25/11/11, 'we do however consider tthere to be remaining uncertainties in future reservoir performance'. XER had already contracted a rig, up to then with no approved drilling plan from DECC for same. They clearly were being told at the time the draft FDP was deemed insufficient to obtain approval, as DECC go on to say in connection with the proposed EWT, it was 'intended to resolve the majority of these uncertainties'.Then, 'as a consequence and as discussed with you, following the EWT we will need to review the results to confirm that the proposed phased development plan as described in your FDP dated 25/11/11 remains appropriate'.
So the whole scene clearly being controlled by DECC. Of course one can ask just why were XER not pressing DECC well before draft FDP submission for acceptance of the data obtained from the ON 6 well, particularly as they had ccommitted $60m plus for the RN rig charter. Or in view of the late stage intransigence of DECC, could they not alternatively either go back at minimal cost to the 6 well, obtain the required data there, even as part of phase 1 put it in production. Alternativey for the 7 well why did they not retain the RN and press on to producton. With no jv partner or conditional funding in place, just turned out a glorified SK school chemistry exercise. Jmo..