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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : NAMX -- North American Expl.-- Que Sera Sera! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael T Currie who wrote (2121)	1/13/1998 12:26:00 PM
From: alchemy	Respond to of 4736

I appreciate the distinctions that Mike and Bob are making. I don't consider it pedantic. The operational reality of the EM Sounder is that coal triggers the same signal as for all the other hydrocarbons. Therefore, the geologists first have to rule out the possiblity of there being coal in the area. More than likely, the geologists will have a good idea of the types of structures that they are working in and can make the call. They can also review the scans and they may be able to tell from the structure itself. I'm guessing here. I'll defer to Mike's expertise on this. The production of the Nebrska fields seems to indicate that there is very good correspondence between the scans and the actual structures. There are two technical factors that we have to live with. The EM Sounder can't scan through salt water. And the EM Sounder can't discriminate between coal, oil or gas. The decision to drill has to be made by the project geologists who make the educated decision. marty