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: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (12018)	9/26/2000 10:04:59 PM
From: LostHillsGuy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15703

PYR to be on CNNfn... PYR Investor Calendar Interview with Scott Singdahlsen, President CNNfn - "Business Unusual" To air on Friday Evening, September 29, 2000 LHG

To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (12018)	9/26/2000 10:06:11 PM
From: Hopsalong	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15703

Sn'P wrote: Is that a firm location for BKP #5? If so, it says lots about BKP #2, being in such close proximity. That's about as close as you'd want to space two prolific gas wells. Speaking of spacing and BKP #5, some questions. Do we know yet what the target depth is with this one? Is close spacing very relevant (for current needs) if the targets are in different zones ie. upper and lower? Is a method to the madness becoming apparent yet ie. in placement of these wells and delineating the prospect? ******************************************************** Now, on the lighter side, there was yet another "wannabe" area play news release put out today. This one came from V.NEC (New Energy West Corp). Somewhat relevant to our "project" is the reference of minumum well spacing. I can't recall if this is anything new for us since Cal Canal days, but the NR states: "The State of California Department of Oil & Gas has established a 160-acre well spacing plan for the Temblor formation in the East Lost Hills area of Kern county. Under this well spacing plan, the Department of Oil & Gas established a pooling agreement for SE/4 of Section 35 T.25S-R.20E which entitles New Energy to drill and operate a well on the basis of paying 100 per cent of the drilling cost to earn, after payout, a 50-per-cent working interest." This release is also of note for it's creativity. In terms of LHG's "keep em' honest" map [http://www.tcsn.net/4618/deluxemap.htm] this release seems to make some interesting claims: "This 160-acre well spacing is located approximately one-half mile west of the Berkley East Lost Hills No. 2 well which is currently being drilled for the Temblor formation. In addition this well spacing is approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the well Berkley East Lost Hills No. 1** which is currently being tied into production facilities." When I look at the map, the closest boundary of Sec 35 looks to be about 1 mile west of BKP #1. And the closest it comes BKP #1 on the other claim is about 2.25 miles, not 1.5. And if you read it carefully, they don't say it is their well that can/will be at these distances. They say the "160-acre well spacing" is at these distances. Their well would likely be quite a bit further, since it's unlikely they'd be able to place it right on the boundary. And if the western lateral extent of ELH proves out as on LHG's map, there is very little of Sec 35 that is on trend. Their investors might need a little bit of luck.