East Sea Oil Field Development Controversy and Withdrawal Issues

The government's claims about the East Sea oil field's viability face scrutiny amid conflicting reports from Woodside.

### Controversy Surrounding East Sea Oil Field Development
Woodside's withdrawal from the East Sea oil field exploration, after 16 years, has sparked controversy, with the government providing a **partial explanation for the exit**. The Australian company cited **high exploration risks and low resource quantities** for its decision, while the government's narrative focused on **merger issues**. The Korea National Oil Corporation's response to the situation has been criticized, raising questions about the **government's transparency and information selection**.

### Controversy Over East Sea Oil and Gas Development
The government's analysis of potential oil and gas locations in the East Sea has been criticized for its **lack of economic viability**. Woodside's quarterly reports and the Korea National Oil Corporation's 3D exploration data set are linked to the controversial "**squid**" Yuman structure. Despite promising probabilities, both the snow crab and crab structures were deemed **not economically viable**, leading to Woodside's withdrawal from the Korean project.

### Woodside's Oil Exploration Analysis
The analysis showed that only Australia's Tri and Northeast regions had **positive economic results**, while other areas, including South Korea's Daegye, were deemed **economically unviable**. Woodside initially considered all seven locations viable but later **withdrew from the project** after re-evaluating. The company also explored the Squid site, identified as a **key area**, and conducted a 3D survey, but the term "**Squid**" has since **disappeared from their reports**.

### Woodside's Withdrawal from Korean Business
Woodside conducted a detailed analysis of at least three locations for crabs and squid but ultimately decided to withdraw, likely due to a **lack of economic viability**. The government has not disclosed the exact locations of the remaining high-potential oil sites, and Woodside's review of seven global locations has only confirmed **one ongoing project in Senegal**, despite its **questionable economic viability**. The internal review at Woodside showed differing opinions on the project's viability, contributing to the **decision-making process**.

### Uncertainty Surrounding Oil Exploration and Government's Response
The presence of oil in the locations given up by Woodside remains unconfirmed, raising questions about the government's **sudden change in judgment**. The Korea National Oil Corporation analyzed exploration data from Woodside and its own, but there has been **no response regarding the acknowledgment and review of Woodside's pre-merger report**. The government's information disclosure has shifted from **partial to non-disclosure**, raising concerns about **transparency amidst media scrutiny**.

### Controversy Over East Sea Oil Field Development: Woodside's Withdrawal and Government Response
* 🛢 The controversy surrounding the East Sea oil field development intensified after Australian company Woodside announced its withdrawal, citing "**lack of business viability**" after 16 years of exploration.
* 📉 The Korean government attributed Woodside's exit to merger issues, but evidence suggests they were aware of the withdrawal reason two years prior, linked to **low economic viability assessments**.
* 📊 In June 2022, the Korea National Oil Corporation requested legal advice, indicating that Woodside, which held a 50% stake, had expressed concerns over **high exploration risks and minimal resource quantities**.
* 🔍 A report revealed that while Woodside's pre-merger analysis indicated a **75% probability for the viability** of the squid structure, the final assessment concluded it **lacked economic viability**, contradicting the government's claims of potential.
* 📉 The analysis also showed that out of seven locations analyzed, only those in Australia yielded **positive results**, while others, including South Korea's, were deemed **economically unviable**, leading to Woodside's **total withdrawal**.
* 📝 Despite the findings, the Korea National Oil Corporation maintained that the squid structure was a **potential site**, raising questions about their understanding of Woodside's reports and the validity of their claims.
* 🤔 With ongoing scrutiny, the government has shifted from **partial to non-disclosure** regarding contract information, further complicating **transparency** in the East Sea oil exploration project.
* 🗣 As the situation evolves, many questions remain about the government's decision-making and the **true potential of the East Sea oil fields**, especially regarding the **three locations already abandoned by Woodside**.

윤석열 정부는 알고 있었다…"대국민 사기극" 발칵 #뉴스다 / JTBC News

뉴스의 현장에서 뵙겠습니다. JTBC News
Welcome to the official JTBC News Channel.

▶ https://news.jtbc.co.kr
