Hi John,
I find your valuations "interesting" but must point out, to those not intimately familiar with exploration risk, that your tabulation in essence suggests that apples are oranges. As such, it risks being very misleading.
As I see it, the ELH prospect already has:
- a very large seismic defined structure that has already been in part proven with the drill bit,
- a proven "reservoir seal",
- a proven hydrocarbon saturation,
- a proven "very large" reserve (albeit ill defined),
- a proven capacity to produce in large and extremely commercial quantities,
- only a very moderate future development risk.
On the other hand, each of the GSJ prospects have:
- totally unproven seismic defined structure (i.e. not yet tested with the drill bit),
- no proven reservoir seal,
- no proven hydrocarbon saturation,
- no proven commercial reserve size,
- no proven capacity to produce in commercial quantities,
- very large exploration risk.
In other words, the ELH prospect is the "bird in the hand" while the GSJ prospects are just "three birds in the bush". To assume\suggest\infer that the potential of any of those three GSJ prospects can, at this point, be valued on par (Man, I do love that game !!) with the ELH prospect is indeed a very lengthy reach !!! As a consequence of having done just that, I feel that you have very seriously "distorted" the valuations. JMHO, BWTHDIK.
Good luck with your "Bakersfield Portfolio".
Later,
grayhairs |
