Michael,
My God!! You spew incessantly!!! Perhaps you should pick up a story book and
tell some stories to your young children rather than plugging this thread with your
jibberish.
Re: "Depending on the game that the TKE participants are playing..."
My goodness, is that what you think this is Michael, just a game?? The TKE
participants are just playing a game with $4.5 MM of shareholder funds for which
they have a fiduciary responsibility?? Is that what you do at Crestar?? play games
with shareholders and their funds??
Thank God these juniors have guys like Holton, Squarek and Robertson
at the helm. They know that there really is only one way to do things.
Re: "...or that they have a technical release which tells investors enough to be able
to ascertain that they actually have something of significance."
and
Re: "The only way investors can understand the release, is to understand its
meaning from a technical perspective."
Well, this is where I have no recourse but to land a light jab, Michael. You seem to
think that we investors are all a bunch of idiots, all incapable of reading and
comprehending a press release. Well, we are not idiots. So provided that you do
not widely disseminate your own mis-interpretation of the release, most of us will
do O.K. And, if we do have any questions at all on the release we can call the
number that will be indicated on the release for more information. That source is
likely to be much more reliable than your mis-interpretation will be given the
precedent you have just recently established.
In Post #459 you made a very profound "motherhood statement" ---
"What is also important is that individuals be able to understand what a press
release is or is NOT telling you." Well Michael. I have to tell you, I nearly shit my
pants when I saw that, because I recalled your earlier post #435 wherein you had
said ---
"Saif brings out a good point with the Carmanah release which I read today. Did
you see the stock chart? Stock took a huge dive on a news release that was
TECHNICALLY DETAILED, indicating that logs looked good, but the zone was
water wet, side wall cores were taken, DST results, etc...."
Now Michael, being a CKM shareholder myself, I immediately recognized a huge
difference between what your statement says and what the Carmanah Release
actually had stated very simply and concisely ---
"Electric logs indicate very good but water wet porosity averaging 30 percent with
no indications of hydrocarbons. Sidewall core samples were collected and a check
shot survey was completed."
Carmanah's release conveys quite a different message from your interpretation.
The official release says the zone was wet, the logs were conclusive, there was no
need to run a DST. You inferred that with just the log data, everything looked
really great and only later (after a DST??) did they learn that the zone was actually
water bearing. But, nowhere did Carmanah's Release even refer to a DST. Your
interpretation of same fabricates a DST. Why??
Your subsequent dissertation on resistivity seems to be offered as an explanation
as to why the zone could test water even though the logs looked good. Obviously,
this explanation would not have been necessary had you understood what the very
simple, very concise press release was actually telling you in the first place.
Now, if you might still be concerned that there is a substantial risk with respect to
the Strachan well (i.e. the logs might have indicated gas, but the pore space might
actually be saturated with distilled water which would make it look like gas on
logs) I ask you when was the last time you tested fresh water (let alone distilled
water) from a 14,000 ft carbonate reservoir???? Now don't you feel more relaxed?
Your Post #459 makes another very profound "motherhood statement" ---
".....caution must be exercised and the tough, intelligent questions must be asked
by any investor. The trust must be earned, not just assumed."
I could not possibly agree with you more!!!! What a great day for "motherhood"!!
Re: ".....many GOOD wells were deemed uneconomic and abandoned simply
because a closed chamber test is not, in itself, a very good test."
Michael, Michael, Michael!!!!! Be extremely careful about judging others from a different perspective in a different time and please do identify for us just 3 of those
GOOD wells that were deemed uneconomic and abandoned because a closed
chamber test was run and screwed up the test results.
And, I most vehemently do disagree with your comment that a closed chamber test
is not, in itself, a very good test. These tests do have their place. And, they are in
fact the only kind of DST that can be run, if useful data is to be obtained, in some
cases. I have run hundreds of closed chamber tests with complete satisfaction. But
then the tests were run in a proper application and I had competent analysts to
interpret the data.
And, since we are somehow back on the subject of closed chamber tests, I will
remind you of your advice to RIK and I in your Post # 222 on the Dalton thread
where you said --- "Yes, you can perform a DST on a sour formation. However, it
is more expensive and requires what is called a closed chamber test." Will you not
just admit here and now that closed chamber tests are NOT required for sour gas??
Closed chamber tests are performed for other reasons.
TO BE CONTINUED....
Later,
grayhairs
P.S.--- Michael, please refrain from "spewing". You have me reaching for a 7
pager that I really do not want to air. Please, tread very carefully!!! |
