ReallyVeryFoolish wrote::oShetland finds may contain much less oil and gas than hoped for
https://www.heraldscotland.com/business ... gas-hoped/
RVF
- quite
The sustained anti-dspp hysteria on some other sites in the last couple of days has been quite something. I actually had to ask for some stuff in other places to get taken down as being plain false as well as defamatory/libellous.
The real question some of those folks need to be asking is what governance processes were (or were not) in place in the last 18-months, that should have prevented the company making unbalanced statements that they were confident that this was perched water, when remarkably little evidence has actually been put forwards in support of that hypothesis. It is all very well ticking the cornflake-packet boxes for LSE Main Board inclusion, but it is irrelevant if the real governance and professional integrity is not in place and demonstrated in public. Furthermore they need to ask who knew what, and when - and who benefitted, and how by way of this unbalanced view that was being proposed by the company.
This is not to say that one day evidence may come to light that confirms this is after all perched water, rather than aquifer water; however on the basis of the evidence that has actually been disclosed so far the very high probability is on the side of the high-set aquifer hypothesis (and the concomitant massive pending reserves reduction).
I for one, despite my oft-expressed concerns regarding the technical conclusions to be drawn, took the view that the company surely had very solid evidence that they simply were not putting into the public domain. I could not believe that the professional integrity of the senior people would allow them to act otherwise. It was only when it became apparent that this did not exist (for surely by then it would have been revealed), that I exited. I most certainly would have exited earlier if a balanced presentation of the data had been made at all times.
It is a funny old world.
regards, dspp