Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : KOB.TO - East Lost Hills & GSJB joint venture -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: grayhairs who wrote (4339)	8/30/1999 6:49:00 AM
From: STLMD	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15703

Good Morning Grayhairs...Thanks for the input. As I said, for my investing I remain only 10% confident of CC hitting commercially viable production but am glad your percentages are quite higher. <<How about a sealed cross fault that runs across the structure between the two well locations. The south end is filled with gas. North of the cross fault the structure is filled with water.>> Is this a reasonable probability given the nature of the structure or just a remote possibility given the seismic data on hand? <<How about a loss of sand quality (porosity and permeability) due to high clay content and a complete lack of fracturing.>> Is there any precedent for this in a large structure such as ELH to have such a difference in sand quality within the same structure? <<How about "no upper sands" even present at this location. Maybe the large upper reservoirs extend only south of Bellevue #1, not north.>> Can seismic data define the difference between upper sands and shale? Seems to me that the data has indicated multiple sands throughout the structure separated by shale. Is this a fair assumption and interpretation of the seismic data at hand? <<How about the BKP #1 well doesn't even "hit" the structure (i.e. just like the original Bellevue #1 well which had to be plugged back and whipstocked about 800 feet to effect the discovery and result in the "blowout").>> This in my mind would only create a delay, not a D & A. I am of the assumption to the best of my limited understanding that drilling with Bel#1 was off directionally and the whipstocking was a deliberate redirection move to enter the Temblor. Thus my estimate of 95% probability of BKP#1 success. Now if my assumptions are somewhat faulty then I owe it to absorbing only 84%(your 80% divided by my 95%!!ggg) of what i have read as well as the great tutelage of yourself and S&P. The Nabors rig I have assumed is more costly than the others so it is in that definition of "big" that I made this assumption. Of course, it may have been the only thing available. BTW, can this rig drill faster than the others, and what things can this do that the others can not. Thanks again for the wonderful education....If this thing hits with any size we certainly aren't going to need any prescription euphoric drugs...ggg. Have a great day....Stephen