Woodside's East Sea Gas Field Withdrawal Controversy

Woodside's withdrawal from East Sea contradicts their thorough evaluation, as revealed by reports.

### Woodside's Withdrawal from the East Sea Gas Field and the Surrounding Controversy
* 🛢 Woodside, a global oil company, has explored the East Sea gas field for 15 years, emphasizing that the decision to withdraw was due to the **acquisition and merger of a petroleum company**.
* 📊 A report from Woodside before the merger evaluated the risks of exploring the East Sea with **specific numbers** and was released in April 2022, three months before Woodside officially announced their **withdrawal**.
* 📈 As part of the merger with BHP, an energy evaluator, Gaffney Cline, assessed the energy development status of both companies for the next five years, including information about the **East Sea in South Korea**.
* 📉 The report measured the potential structures mainly based on data from 2008 and 2014, indicating that Woodside had not thoroughly analyzed the large-scale 3D data, contradicting the government's **explanation that they withdrew after conducting a large-scale exploration**.
* 🔍 ActGeo, which analyzed explorations in a similar area, revealed that there are **seven promising structures** with a **high potential for containing oil** after analyzing for about **ten months**.
* 🗣 The Petroleum Corporation stated that ActGeo identified **seven promising structures** with a **high potential for containing oil** in the central and eastern parts of Block 6-1, which Woodside has not explored.
* 🌐 It was explained that even if the same area is analyzed, the **interpretations may differ**.

Woodside, a global oil company, has explored the East Sea gas field for 15 years. They have emphasized that the decision to withdraw was due to the acquisition and merger of a petroleum company, but a report from Woodside before the merger evaluated the risks of exploring the East Sea with specific numbers. This report was released in April 2022, three months before Woodside officially announced their withdrawal. As part of the merger with BHP, an energy evaluator, Gaffney Cline, assessed the energy development status of both companies for the next five years. The report also includes information about the East Sea in South Korea. It measured the potential structures mainly based on data from 2008 and 2014, indicating that Woodside had not thoroughly analyzed the large-scale 3D data.

It contradicts the explanation given by our government that they withdrew without conducting a thorough evaluation after carrying out a large-scale exploration. They notified their intention to withdraw without sufficient assessment. Looking at the background, BHP 4 was already in the process of being merged, and the report evaluated it as being in the early stages of exploration. They analyzed the probability of it being a promising structure to be 75% and 25%, respectively. The report in August, stating that they withdrew due to lack of profitability, contains much more detailed evaluations and figures. Although there is a structure, it has not yet reached the stage where it becomes a project. ActGeo, which analyzed explorations in a similar area, revealed that there are seven promising structures with a high potential for containing oil after analyzing for about ten months. The Petroleum Corporation stated that ActGeo identified seven promising structures with a high potential for containing oil in the central and eastern parts of Block 6-1, which Woodside has not explored.

I analyzed additional 3D data and explained that even if the same area is analyzed, the interpretations may differ. This is MBC News Chang Ki.

우드사이드 "동해 리스크 크다"‥3D데이터도 분석 끝내 (2024.06.12/뉴스투데이/MBC)

MBC 뉴스 공식 유튜브 채널입니다. 시청자 여러분의 의견과 제보를 항상 기다립니다. 
세상과 소통하는 시간, MBC 뉴스와 함께 하세요!

MBCNEWS

Woodside's 15-Year Exploration of the East Sea Gas Field

Woodside's withdrawal from the East Sea gas field was influenced by a pre-merger report evaluating the exploration risks.

The report, released in April 2022, contradicted the government's explanation and showed insufficient analysis of the 3D data.

The company's claim of withdrawal due to lack of profitability was challenged by detailed evaluations and the identification of promising structures by ActGeo in the same area.

The Impact of 3D Data Analysis on Interpretations

Additional 3D data analysis can lead to different interpretations of the same area.

Chang Ki discusses the potential for varying conclusions drawn from the analysis.