I think I can add a little to what Senior said.

>ONE issue is that we still have the CO2 and H2S (did I get it right?, if not please feel free to put the correct lettering) to contend with.

Well they certainly need to prepare for it anyway, which they apparently have. The levels of H2S they encountered earlier were quite low, and IF they stay that way, then obviously it will have to be removed. The cost should be very minimal at the reported levels. I certainly don't think it's anything to loose any sleep over that's for sure.

>if as you say staying shallower than 4500 m is better, and if going deeper is not feasible due to the issues expressed above, then we would loose a significant amount of possible reserves.

Well if there is so much 'easy' gas that it will take them 50 years to extract it all, then I don't think it matters if we loose out on the 'hard to get' gas

> There is in all this an explanation as to why MOL is interested in unitizing their ground to FO's.

I've pointed out a few times now that the mining act states that if an accumulation is covered by multiple owners, then they have to unitize. They've followed all the other rules up to now, I don't see why this would be any different.