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: Cumbrian who wrote (1003)	12/13/1998 7:23:00 PM
From: grayhairs	Respond to of 15703

Hi Geoff, My point exactly. Was it measured or is it simply a WAG ? Did the BOP\Wellhead even fail? I've read that (on this thread??) but I have not seen any such equipment failure type comments in any of the News Releases, so... In fact, the early releases that I saw suggest to me that the BOP\Wellhead did not fail. If it is a WAG based upon a BOP failure, that still assumes that the BOP failed at it's "design" which would be a very poor assumption if the BOP happened to be defective. If it is a WAG based upon actual mud weights necessary to control the well, then that would be a lot better estimate. My whole point is that unless we know the basis of these pressure value, are they any more credible than another WAG of 7,650 psi(approximate hydrostatic pressure at 17,600 feet)?? Might sound like hair splitting but the difference between 18,000, 15,000, and 7,650 psi for purposes of reserve calculations is huge. Oh well, what's a TCF here or there, hey ?? Later, grayhairs