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 : Tusk Energy (TKE) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RIK who wrote (803)	8/27/1998 11:36:00 AM
From: grayhairs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1207

Given your quite conservative criterion that a mere 100 BCF would be a MAJOR discovery, the pool penetrated by the 3-22 well will easily rank as a major discovery. I too am disappointed that the "crosshairs" of Alberta's investment community have missed this one. But, then we both know that they have missed more then one MAJOR discovery before [E.g. The Esso/BEA/STF/CWQ Turner Valley well @ >150 BCF (per Esso!!!) or @ 600 BCF (per BEA), to name just one other recent oversight and coincidently(?) another "tight hole"]. While it is clear from your response that you do not consider the deep reserves of 3-22 to be of any material economic value to TKE (i.e. NAV = 0), you have chosen not to respond to my question #2. Instead, you choose to pussle me by attacking my former posts to the Bearcat thread and my "field skills". You seem in particular to be taking exception with my post #496. Now, unless the stimulation of that well has just recently been completed disproving my assertions and expectations, I do not understand why that particular post would be bothersome to you. I do concede that the uppercase emphasis of the post was a both a bit much and annoying, but otherwise...?? With respect to my question #4, I'm very sorry, I should have simplified that one for a rock hound. I do find it quite surprising that a "pretending" geologist is unable to provide ANY sort of quantitative estimate of the expected reserves and NAV of "potential hydrocarbon producing zones behind pipe" until same have actually been completely tested to determine fluid content, productivity and reservoir size. Yet another example of a geologist letting the engineers do all the really difficult stuff, I guess. I'm sorry for asking this but just how do you guys ever persuade your bosses to drill a well if you can not give them some sort of "expectation" of the reserves and value to be generated by your proposed wells ?? You rock dogs are supposed to be men of great vision and not just men of phenomenal wisdom ! I guess you must also be terrific salesmen !! With respect to my post # 407 on the Bearcat thread, nice try RIK!! You know damn well that it is one thing to interpret logs when you have several proximal producing wells in the same zone (E.g. the shallow Strachan horizons) and another substantially different thing to interpret logs from a zone where you lack proximal producers (E.g. The Esso et al TV test). The "Grayhairs S--t happens Theorem" is of course justifiably usable in the later case. But, it is a mere "crutch" for incompetents in the former case. Going fishin for a while?? What's the matter? Do you have a stock or two that's down in "this market" (besides TKE and the sisters that is)?? If so, be very careful, perhaps they just don't have any "deep" assets either !!!! Have a pleasant evening.