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: JL who wrote (1166)	12/22/1998 8:42:00 AM
From: Kerm Yerman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15703

All / Share Price An additional penny a day keeps my heart doctor away. Really not bad in the face of another day where the oil and gas sector got clobbered once again.

To: JL who wrote (1166)	12/22/1998 9:20:00 AM
From: grayhairs	Respond to of 15703

Hi JL, I understand that water has a tendency to impede the movement of gas when they share the same porous space. I also understand that the decrease in gas is, in all likelihood, a function of that physical reality. That's a part of the explanation. Another part is that the weight of the water column imposes a back pressure on the fluids flowing from the formation and requires that energy be expended to lift the water to surface. ... isn't this amount of gas (40MMcf/d) inferred from the amount of water speculated to be being vaporized... which in turn is inferred from the Christie speculation of 9000 Bbls/d of water being trucked and as being half the total? No, with test equipment now on site, the gas rate will be measured. There's no reason to try and estimate gas rate from an evaporation calculation which in an application that has minimal prospect of even getting us in the ballpark, even if we knew the exact number of barrels being evaporated. (There's just too many other unknowns-- gas composition, efficiency, temperature of the water, etc.). I personally place little importance on the current absolute gas and water rates. Why?? 1) the well has only 17 feet of Temblor sand open for production (if reported numbers are credible). Future wells will most likely have much larger intervals open for flow, IMHOO, BWDIK. 2) Future producing wells will not produce water, IMHOO, BWDIK. So, I do not get particularly concerned if the water rate is 18,000 9,000 or just 4,500 bbls/d. In any case, that's a "p" pot full of water!! Whereas the rate of water production may provide a clue as to the actual source, IMHOO the actual water rate doesn't preclude development of the play nor preclude a large reserve. Similarly, I don't particularly care if the well is making 5 or 50 MMCF/d at the moment. When the well produces an undeniably large rate of water, from a presently unknown source, what gas rate should the well to produce ?? I have viewed the video at www.bakersfield.com and I blindly accept Christie's assertion that that video is of the ELH #1 well. So, I am of the opinion that productivity of the Temblor reservoir will not be an impediment to development of the play (notwithstanding that the blow out flows were not measured!!). Isn't it reasonable to assume that the answers to such questions regarding "how much... (oil/gas/water)" would be tightly held by those in charge of the site? Nope, that's not a reasonable assumption, IMHOO, BWDIK. Christie claims that there's a small army around the site. And, we know that there are a number of consultants and specialists involved in the capping project. There will also be several regulatory personnel, insurance reps and the several partners who all have access to information. And, there are competitors who hold proximal acreage positions which have been advertized\marketed in Calgary. Those competitors will have scouted. Nope!! She ain't a "tight hole"!! Not a snowball's chance in Hell !! Is there another source of information regarding the volume of water being removed from the site and the percentage that it represents of the total besides Bob Christie's reportage? Scouts will often count the truckloads of fluids removed from the lease over a certain time interval. But, I doubt that Christie would have had to resort to that. He probably just bought a few beer in a local tavern. If these numbers are accurate and can be verified through an official source then they are indeed indicative of what lies below. 100Bcf is nothing to sneeze at. This is a 24 square mile prospect. Sorry, but I must beg to differ again. Even if these rates were verified by the Pope they would not be indicative of the underlying reserves. Rates do NOT indicate reserves. Rates only suggest productive capability. Do you know if "the 24 square mile prospect" has been "verified through an official source" ?? Others on this thread have indicated that the prospect is in fact 14x2 = 28 square miles and I have simply accepted that size (At this stage I ignore everything greater than 4 sections, anyways!!) No, I haven't bought in yet. I do not yet know if I will. Good Luck. Later, grayhairs