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 : American International Petroleum Corp -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: qdog who wrote (6783)	1/19/1998 10:54:00 PM
From: John R Resseger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11888

biz.yahoo.com Two Russian Oil companies merge to make "World's Largest" Today's news

To: qdog who wrote (6783)	1/20/1998 12:03:00 AM
From: Laserbones	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11888

>>Not sure I understand the question.<< Perhaps it was worded poorly. Let me try it another way: There is a degree of expectation that aipn will come out with favorable results of the new siesmic on Chikuduk and some other structures. You stated that it (the new data) might confirm the old (Soviet) data--I'm all for reproducible data...it's what I live for. Now we really don't know what inferences can be made from the previous Soviet data on these areas. Obviously that original data supported the drilling of some wells. And there were some blowouts--which I understand can mean several things. If aipn does release a summary through Millennium about the siesmic results should we automatically expect there to be highly positive statements made about the quality of the data and what it might imply? This is why I asked if you know of any other company that released a report on a siesmic study on a much speculated structure (and Chikuduk has received some hype) that was negative--the press release actually came out and said: "Sorry shareholders, but the data implies that drilling would be a wasted effort." See what happens when I stay extremely late at the lab? Aside: The above line of thinking is credited to an individual on aol. I see no reason to immediately dismiss his argument without some consideration.

To: qdog who wrote (6783)	1/20/1998 4:30:00 PM
From: NoMoney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11888

qdog, This excerpt from a news release about the two seismic crews seems to indicate that the government had already done the preliminary work and had decided on the place to drill and therefore the use of the phrase "preventing its further evaluation" must apply to determining flow rate and the like.. Not in determining the viability of drilling and probable reserves. "The Kazakstan government had previously drilled a well in this structure, which blew out with gas and condensate, preventing its further evaluation of the well." What say you about this?? Peace, NoMoney