Well S&P, I guess with respect to #3228 all I can say is that "Heavily" may in fact be quite an understatement (Heavens, that particular Post was July 4, 9:18 p.m. E.T !!) <gg> And, with respect to #3292, I think you may have misinterpreted what I "intended" there !! Sorry that I wasn't perfectly clear.
And, you need never apologize for "picking apart" my posts, S&P. Hell, I've been married a long time.... I know that I'm far from perfect !! <gg>
Seriously, I can only attempt to clarify my comments in those 2 posts by explaining that those posts were just 2 out of a lengthy sequence with THC. My views on actual ELH reserves are more clearly outlined in an earlier post (# 3190) in that sequence. I perhaps should have paid more attention to my comments in the 2 posts which you reference. Sorry for the confusion and in an effort to clarify my views about ELH reserves I will copy the following from #3190:
"I am not prepared to throw "probabilities" at various reserve sizes but I am comfortable and confident in saying that the ELH discovery is certainly world class. And, I will say that, IMHO, the reserves exceed 1 TCF. For my own work, I use my "best current estimate" gas reserve of 3 TCF. But, I caution you that this is only a calculated guess. My estimate may be optimistic. Or, it could be dwarfed by actual reserves as high as 14-16 TCF. Nobody can tell us today what the actual reserve is simply because nobody knows. There isn't yet sufficient good quality data to precisely define the reserve."
And, with respect to "online bridge", well I've heard that people may suspect that you've got a drinking problem if you drink when you are alone !! BTW, Mrs G just got home and I asked her if she would consider moving to Butte but she responded with something I can't put in print for public viewing. <gg>
Have a pleasant evening.
Later,
grayhairs |
