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: F9driver who wrote (15500)	2/13/2002 6:42:51 PM
From: grayhairs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15703

<<Everybody should know that the wells from Avenal to Bakersfield have had a water cut since 1895 but few have watered out. What is his purpose in the review?>> Perhaps you should read what is IN the post just one more time. This time, try not to see words that are not there !! Just seek to understand what is IN the post. If you succeed in that then perhaps there will be less need for you to question a motive or purpose behind the post. VERY LARGE CLUE: A single phase fluid insitu precludes the possibility of ANY water free hydrocarbon production period from the wells. However, two distinct insitu fluids allows for some water free production. A subsequent arrival of water at the wells suggests something about the reservoir. Adios F9, I'm going golfing in the Caribbean again !!

To: F9driver who wrote (15500)	2/13/2002 6:59:48 PM
From: Enigma	Respond to of 15703

Saliva - get lost!

To: F9driver who wrote (15500)	2/13/2002 10:29:28 PM
From: que seria	Respond to of 15703

F9, there are some logical flaws in your charges. I asked myself on this thread, as I have elsewhere on the net, about posters' possible self-serving motives for posting supportive or critical comments. Here, as elsewhere, I tried to weigh comments for their content, so I didn't depend upon motive. If I did it badly (OK, scratch the "if"), I can't see through cyberspace into someone's mind to adjudge him a shill, nor can you. I entirely disagree with your conclusions, but the bigger point is your lack of any basis for them beyond conjecture. E&P vets make wrong bets all the time. For an ex-military guy, I'm surprised you can reconcile your attack on Grayhairs' integrity with your honor code. You indirectly make my point about the need for guesswork: What do you really know about this mysterious man other than what he has wanted you to know or what his collaborators have said. We now have a poster on each of this and the Stockhouse board who have dominated the threads with "technical" expertise during times of imminent well testing and have then sold stock and "slunk" off without explanation soon after. Of course, you and I have no idea whether or what Grayhairs sold, or when or why. I wondered about his absence too, but then realized I wouldn't want to spend much time on a board either, if I knew that my prognostications would make me a target after they did not pan out. People--even experts--can be confident and wrong without being dishonest. If you held on to too much for too long in this play (as I did), shouldn't that prompt self-examination rather than an indictment of posters we admittedly know about only from their posts? We all choose the basis on which we invest. I appreciate the input of Grayhairs and other helpful posters with technical knowledge, even if their optimism about production from the ELH play has yet to be justified. I'm far more skeptical now about feasibilty, but I don't need to count upon posters' integrity in order to weigh or cross-check their information and opinions. Believed any analysts lately?