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: Michael M. Cubrilo who wrote (429)	12/5/1998 5:22:00 PM
From: Michael M. Cubrilo	Respond to of 15703

Rick Brown, still waiting for an answer to my question. mike

To: Michael M. Cubrilo who wrote (429)	12/5/1998 6:49:00 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15703

Good info Mike. bob

To: Michael M. Cubrilo who wrote (429)	12/6/1998 5:36:00 AM
From: Salt'n'Peppa	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15703

Of course Oilmaster's comments are pertinent. Just as my response to them are only an opinion. Please change your attitude. No-one appreciates your schoolmistress "I'm waiting..." comments. In answer to your question (and your point is a good one), I have no idea about the California O&G rules. I strongly feel that the point is moot anyway, because it is unlikely that such a thick gas reservoir can be considered a "gas cap". I guess we need to define the meaning of cap. Does the oil beneath have to be twice as thick as the cap, or ten times? I don't know. If this is to be considered a gas cap, I think the oil column would have to be 5000 feet or more. You are also clinging to the idea that Bellvue #1 has to be an oil well. IT IS A GAS WELL, without question, and the partners have already stated that the well will be tied in and produced as soon as possible.