For old times sake..

[admin]

I see that it has been broght back to life. Since we don't have to reinvent the wheel everytime, now is as good a time to point people to the discussion at the end of a SA article: between a few people

• Feeltheheat (aka Bostonkenmore)
• Bonkthegrups (aka Keubiko)
• Indoreservoir

For clearity, the posts below are answers from Indoreservoir, but he usually repeats the points he's responding to.

Here is IndoReservoir responding to 7 points from Boston

Dealing with your technical points in “ “ and largely skipping the economics comments as others are more qualified than I to assess these, my comments are:

“1. Other wells drilled in the Eastern Papuan basin have initially flowed hyrdrocarbons but when run for an extended period time flowed water.”

Is this from the 1958 (yes, 1958!) news story in the 2012 Invest for Kids presentation someone posted over at Yahoo? Or do you have other data? That news story refers to a well which flowed oil, was sidetracked and then produced water. Big deal - they had a small oil accumulation and drilled the sidetrack into the water leg. Happens quite frequently in oil and gas, as operators seek to find the oil-water contact with the drill bit. This Puri field was some 10 km west of Elk/Antelope. So what?

I've searched IHS and WoodMac, and find no indications of other oil or gas producers in the IOC area watering out after extended testing, as you suggest. If you have some data/info, please advise (and please don't be condescending with nonsense like 'do your own due diligence' - show me the data, please.)

#2-4 – skip as economics – however, I will point out that your estimate of $10-20 billion is a decent range, but I’d guess that $12-15 billion (IOC estimates $8-9) would be more appropriate given the $19 billion cost of XOM’s plant, much further away.

I also note that 9TCF of gas, even at a very low LNG price of $10/mmbtu, is about $90 billion dollars in revenue. I reckon I could make those economics work!

“#5 Though Interoil has drilled seven wells since the Elk discovery in 2006, they have drilled may more in their history, only three of those have been at Antelope which is where the vast majority of the OGIP rests according to GLJ. All three wells have been very close together.”

Antelope 1 and 2 were about 2.1 miles apart – this is NOT ’very close’ as you suggest. Antelope 3 was drilled between these wells to prove continuity, which it did. Further, in a roughly north-south direction, they have drilled wells in Elk/Antelope over an 8-mile distance.

“#6 The one well drilled farther off, Elk-2 flowed water.”

All wells flow some water (water of condensation, and often load and/or drilling water) and I cannot find the DST results for Elk 2 to confirm it flowed formation water. WoodMac notes that Elk-2 was spudded in February 2007. The well was located five kilometres north of Elk-1 and was drilled downdip, aiming to validate the data gathered during the drilling of Elk-1. Elk-2 aimed to intersect the GWC, determine the extent of the gas column and assess the extent of the fracture system in the Mendi Limestone. The GWC was not intersected.

On Elk 2, as mapped you can clearly see its off the current structure map at the very northern tip of the accumulation. This is what happens in oil and gas exploration and appraisal. Hence they went south from Elk 1 and found substantially more gas. Indeed, they've got gas wells in an 8-mile line across the reservoir - this is VERY good news.

And the significant fracturing AND high matrix porosity in their reservoirs augers VERY well for long-term productivity. This is no Beaver River field (Amoco Field in British Columbia, Canada in the 1970s), of that we're certain.

“#7 According to the link below, an extended well test would provide a "greater radius of investigation". “

This is undoubtedly true – the longer you flow the well, the greater the radius of investigation. The real question is whether this provides critically required data.

The paper you linked to was co-authored by an Expro person (guess what they sell/rent – well test packages), and was only one field out of the several hundred/thousand OIL fields discovered and appraised every year. Extended well testing is a rarity, and is not needed IF you have sufficient data from drilling and ordinary well testing (which IOC clearly does). And its less common on gas fields - typically EWTs are needed to test faulting and transmissibility across those faults for waterflood/pressure maintenance operations and also to estimate the number of wells needed to develop an OIL field, not a gas field.

For example, here is a story today from Upstream magazine – NO TEST needed. Hmm.
________
Upstream Magazine
13 March 2013 02:48 GMT
ConocoPhillips has elected not to carry out a production test on the Zephyros-1 well on Block WA-398-P, in the Browse basin, off north-west Australia.
Well partner Karoon Gas Australia said wireline logs were being acquired, with 108 metres of core core cut and recovered to surface.
It revealed, however, that the joint venture had decided not to carry out a production test on the well due to similarities between it and the Kronos-1 discovery, adding the core and wireline data set provided “a sufficient data set” for ongoing field evaluation work.
The joint venture believes a production test at Zephyros-1 would flow at similar, tubing constrained,rates to Kronos‐1, which flowed at a rate of 26 million cubic feet per day during a drill-stem test in 2010.
_______

“Given these facts, how can a potential buyer be so sure that the wells will not saturate with water without actually physically testing for that? So sure that they are willing to risk a multi-billion dollar investment. Wouldn't they want to know the extent of the reservoir which an EWT would tell them?”

The bottom line is that there IS an extensive core, log and well test database that a potential buyer can and certainly has used for evaluating the assets. An EWT will NOT necessarily tell them the extent of the reservoir – seismic and the drill bit are used for that, and they have been in Elk/Antelope.

Feeltheheat - enjoy the dialogue. Please accept my comments in the constructive manner I've offered them (and accept some sarcasm, please.)

[admin]

Bonk and Feeltheheat

Thanks for your replies. I don't have time this morning for an extended reply, and I also need to research a bit more, but I want to make a couple of quick points:

1. the widely touted claim that WELLS water-out prematurely in IOC's area has now been reduced to ONE WELL (Puri-1) watering-out prematurely in a field different from IOCs.
The importance of this is simply that authors leading others to believe that premature water out is common are not being strictly clear - there is ONE WELL that had this problem, and that well from 1958 when the state of the art in hydrocarbon exploration was much less advanced.

2. I commented on Feeltheheats comment about the lack of a geologic model NOT to criticize Feeltheheat, but rather to illustrate it is important to get the FACTS correct. Otherwise, for example, we have one well becoming 'wells' and one would think premature water-out is very common in the eastern Papuan basin, when in fact it is not.

Also note that I miss facts also, so again I'm not being critical.

3. I am actually quite a supporter of longer-term well tests, IN THE APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES. For example, it was quite clear at Hess' Ujung Pangkah Field (a Miocent carbonate reservoir offshore Java) that a long-term test WAS needed, but this advice (which I gave, btw) was ignored and Hess has lost a bunch of money. Ditto for a couple other fields about to be developed in Indonesia. Now, other fields for LNG plants (Arun, Vorwata, Abadi, North, to name several) do NOT need long-term tests as the appraisal drilling and testing were sufficient to estimate long-term productivity. As I said before, we understand fluid flow in porous media very well, and if we gather enough information with the bit, core, log, and short-term well test data, we can predict long-term performance.

4. I wouldn't waste too much time chasing down the Poseidon field - I did NOT look for that case at all - I just saw it in yesterday's Upstream so posted it to illustrate a point which I know to be true - many developments have limited or no testing because data were obtained from other wells or analogues. There are literally hundreds of untested developments, worldwide, for this very reason. As you indicate, its on a case-by-case basis. From this reservoir engineer's review, an EWT is not needed at elk/Antelope.

5. Zamzama! I know that field and Premier very, very well. Premier had no money in 2000 and could not affort full development. Call it an extended test, rent the equipment, and get some cash flow. That was the goal here - reservoir data was simply an excuse. And of this I'm 100% certain, and you can choose to believe me or not - frankly I don't care.

[admin]

Searching more for some well results, if you read the Businessinsider piece from April 2010 by Henry Blodget you get nonsense like this (as quoted from some "the primary investigation of InterOil that we're excerpting here."

"...Finally the truth came out. The well flowed 1610 barrels of oil per day on day one. By day 10 it flowed 30 barrels of oil per day plus 116 barrels of water. A second deviated hole was found – but there was no repeat of the oil discovery.

Our intrepid oil explorers however were not discouraged by this very expensive (and well reported) failure. They set up camp 15 miles away and drilled the Bwata well. Other wells were drilled. These flowed gas (not oil) but they had the same properties – which is that the flows were massive (in one case literally blowing the top off the well) but then the flows died rapidly. There were no sustainable hydrocarbon flows – just a spectacular initial flow followed by failure."

This is simply nonsense from a skeptic who reports hearsay without any proof. What wells exhibited 'spectacular initial flow followed by failure" - the author does not bother to say.

Here is what Wood Mackenzie (an internationally recognized provider of oil and gas resource information) says about Bwata, to which they assign 50bcf in resources

"Bwata-1 was drilled by APC in 1960. The well flowed gas at rates up to 32 mmcfd. The discovery lay on the PPL 191 block, which was relinquished by a Santos-led joint venture in December 2000. In March 2003, an exploration permit, PPL 237, was granted to InterOil which covers the Bwata field. The results of Puri-1, drilled in 1958 and Moose-1 & 2, drilled in 2003 have confirmed a potential oil reservoir in PPL 237 and PPL 238."

The 'primary investigation' from Blodget's report is basically a sham. Only the Puri 1 well, which did in fact water out, is accurate (but which the author says 'Finally, the truth came out.....' as if there was some grand conspiracy to hide Puri 1 results.)

Here's what WoodMac says about Puri

"Puri-1 was drilled by APC in 1958 in the exploration permit, PPL 201. The well flowed oil at a maximum rate of 1,610 b/d before watering out. Puri-1st and Puri-1st2 were both drilled by Australasia Petroluem in 1959, to depths of 2,416 metres and 2,597 metres respectively. Both wells encountered oil.

Puri South-1 was drilled by Kundu in 1988, but was plugged and abandoned as a dry hole.

In March 2003, an exploration permit, PPL 237 was granted to InterOil which covers the Puri field."

FWIW, Puri is about 17 km to the west of Elk/Antelope fields.

I fear I'm getting to detailed, but perhaps some might like the above information. Blodget's piece is a terrible excuse for journalism. Oh well.

[admin]

Feeltheheat

In response
“However isn't water saturation a huge issue when it comes to limestone reservoirs in general? The GLJ report has an entire section dedicated to the issue. My understanding is that although there are ways to combat this through acid insertion and/or horizontal drilling, there is no guarantee that you can keep the water from saturating the hole and killing recovery rates. Even so, the insertion of chemicals into a flowing wells that are near an aquifer might be something the Government might be interested in. “

Yes water saturation (Sw) is a big issue, but not as you’ve described it. Above the free water level, water is immobile and won’t flow to the wellbore. The reason Sw is so important is simple: the pore volume occupied by gas is reduced by the irreducible water saturation which generally covers the rock surface and, as I said, is immobile. The operative equation is simply

Gas pore volume = gross rock volume above free water level * porosity * (1 – water saturation)

So the higher the water saturation, the lower the gas pore volume and hence the less gas-in-place.

As for water actually flowing to the wellbore, this would come from water below the free water level, in Antelope’s case some hundreds of feet below the perforated interval and/or horizontal well. For this water to encroach on the well, there has to be sufficient pressure drawdown to cause it to defy gravity and cone or cusp to the well. No substantial drawdown, no water flow to the well.

I can assure you that the bidder’s engineers reviewing this issue have analysed this very carefully and will have formed an opinion.

“Given these set of circumstances. It does seem to me that a rational buyer would want to know what happens to the wells when they are run for many days before they write a multi-billion dollar plus check and embark on a large infrastructure project.”

Yes they do want to know what happens. The method of forecasting well/field performance based on the equations which model fluid flow in porous media. These equations are combined with data from seismic, appraisal wells (logs, core, reservoir geometry, well tests), and analogy to predict long-term reservoir performance. These techniques are standard in the industry, and have been used worldwide on many fields supplying LNG projects – Arun, Vorwata Field (BP Tangguh), North/Qatar, etc. Sometimes engineers and geoscientists get it wrong (Beaver River, Ujung Pangkah, etc) but much more often we get it right (though with some margin of error.)


"From this reservoir engineer's review, an EWT is not needed at elk/Antelope."

Why not?

Because IOC have sufficient data from their reasonable amount of well coverage over an 8-mile apparently continuous reservoir (from seismic and basic geology), combined with their model of reservoir fluid flow as reviewed by one or more reservoir engineering firms.

The final check would be analogue reservoirs – carbonates all over the world but Arun may be appropriate. Certainly it was a wonderful moneymaker for Mobil. I could look further in the fractured Iranian, reservoirs, Lacq Field, the Arab D or Khuff formations or many others, but I'm not bidding on the asset so I won't proceed

All I can tell you is the extent of fracturing (shown in a picture in, of all places, Blogett’s BusinessInsider paper) and the matrix porosity and permeability published by IOC strongly suggest this reservoir will produce substantial quantities of gas before water production becomes a problem.

Now I’m done with this little bit of reservoir engineering 101 - an extended well test is not needed. QED.


"Not only, have the big names not invested in exploration in the area. But they haven't invested in adjacent property in Eastern PNG. One thing I've found, is that large discoveries tend to quickly attract big names with deep pockets in adjacent areas"

Oil Search has indeed acquired acreage near IOC, but it appears most of the other prospective onshore acreage is tied-up. Total and Oil Search have gone into the Gulf - same hydrocarbon system but different play type as IOCs.

Thats enough for now.

[admin]

Bonk

Comments on your EWT point:

“2) They applied for a permit for an EWT but were denied by the PNG government because it would "waste gas". SA Contributor "Treasure Hunter" claims was told this by the company, as have others.

#2 is a bit weird because:

a) The CEO told Upstream http://bit.ly/157vrtY that such a test would be "stupid" Why would they apply to do a stupid thing? Why did a stupid thing appear as a "forward plan" in presentations?

b) Is a few weeks of production on a "30 year resource" really that material?

c) A hedge fund (Lakeview - they are short) publicly stated that the PNG government told them no application was made.”

My comments on points a, b, and c above is
a. IOC committed the no.1 error of an operator overseas – they made the regulator take the blame for denying them an EWT permit. Never blame the regulator! Mumbles Mulacek maybe tried to make-up for this with an explanation that an EWT was a ‘stupid’ idea anyway.
b. A few weeks of flared resource at, say, 50 mmcfd is 1.5 bcf/month. While we might not think that is important, but the people and politicians rightly claim that this resource belongs to the PNG people, so why are we burning it? This is the way many, many people look at this issue.
c. A hedge fund called-up the PNG government and got an answer about IOC? I note that NO OTHER party has made such a representation or even reported trying. Why? Because it was not and cannot be done. I believe Lakeview is simply not credible and what they are saying is untrue for the following reasons:
a. A government is NOT going to talk to anyone but the Operator (InterOil) about such matters. Why would they? Its simply not done. I’ve been in multiple countries in SE Asia, and this kind of question would not be answered.
b. Lakeview may have called, and got a ‘no’ answer to a question which was not understood, and/or to which they were asking a security guard, an operator, a secretary, a receptionist, or ?. (Do you think Lakeview even knows that Port Moresby time is some 17 (?) hours ahead of Chicago time?) Did the person they supposedly talked to research the issue – how do we know they called the right department – did they identify the person they talked to, the time/dates of the calls etc? If not why not? (see below.)
c. I propose any reader of this board to call up the US MMS (or whatever the new US regulatory authority is called) and ask them about, for example, Shell’s permitting requests (pick any permit) in the GOM. Does anyone really think they will get an answer?

For the avoidance of doubt, here is an excerpt from the Lakeview speech

“So we tracked down the head of permitting & licensing at the Department of Energy in Papua New Guinea, who confirmed for us that InterOil had not applied for any extended well tests during 2009 and 2010, as the Company had told us both verbally and in writing. [SLIDE 12] We called again to make sure we had understood this correctly. Not only was the information confirmed, but we also learned that had InterOil applied to run the test, the department would have likely granted their requests, as they have done for Oil Search for over a decade.”

As an aside, I can find NO indications that Oil Search has conducted an extended well test, yet for some reason Lakeview claims they have. (though I only looked thru the 2009-2011 info – annual reports and presentations.)

And who is this mysterious head of permitting & licensing? Why don’t they identify him/her? And I note that an EWT would not be applied to permitting & licensing (which is traditionally for acreage) but to the reservoir or petroleum engineering section of the Department of Energy.

IF they talked to anyone, and IF they got an answer, they were likely talking to the wrong person!

Just my IMHO.

---

Just one more quick comment - IOC already had testing permits for the extensive DST program they conducted on Ant 1 and 2, so I do not understand the need for yet another formal permit.

And as mentioned above, the folks in DOE supervising the testing plan would be engineers and geoscientists, and presumably they would be the ones agreeing to a longer-term test. This is certainly how it works in other countries.

IOC would NOT have to reapply to the permitting & licensing guy for a testing permit which they already had!

[admin]

feeltheheat

I don't know why you selectively quote my post but its is inappropriate and disappointing. Appreciate if you would at least be thorough and not cherry-pick my response to support your statements.

Here is your quote:

"As an aside, I can find NO indications that Oil Search has conducted an extended well test, yet for some reason Lakeview claims they have"

Then you aren't looking very hard. This is the second entry when googling Oil Search "Extended Well Test"

For accuracy, I said exactly where I looked. Here is the full text of what I said, for some reason you conveniently forgot the last part:

"As an aside, I can find NO indications that Oil Search has conducted an extended well test, yet for some reason Lakeview claims they have. (though I only looked thru the 2009-2011 info – annual reports and presentations.)"

I did not google anything - I looked thru annual reports as Lakeview says thats where they found the extended well test information. Here is what Lakeview said:

" The only commercial ... So why hasn’t InterOil performed these common flow tests? " 

As their speech was made in Nov 2012, I certainly thought I'd find something to support this claim in their annual reports from 2009, 2010, or 2011. I found NOTHING.

Moving on, you claim that PNG is a party to some UN treaty and will give the information out in the public interest. I have not yet asked PNG, but I HAVE asked for similar information in other SE Asian countries and the regulatory authorities will not release such information to 3rd parties. This because the government, like the Operator, are under confidentialy provisions in the production license. Very simple.

What they said runs counter to my experience and I believe they are mistaken, misleading or lying.

I have relevant experience on this issue with several SE Asian countries. Do you? Frankly I do not care if you believe that or not.

Then you say

"Applications for well testing under the PNG O & G Act of 1998, like in most countries are a matter of public interest and public record. Given these set of facts,...."

How is an application for well testing a matter of public interest and public record? Can you provide a definition that clearly says well testing falls under this classification?

And I note you did not say "extended" well testing and you ignored the fact that IOC already had approval for testing the wells. Would they need separate approvals for a 1 minute, 1 hour, 1 day, 1 year flow test? If so why, and please substantiate your claim.

"Further the person checked with his colleagues just to make sure and it was confirmed that there was no record of such an application"

What? Where did this come from?

This is what Lakeview said

"So we tracked down th... New Guinea, who confirmed for us that InterOil had not
 applied for any exten... writing.  [SLIDE 12] We called again to make sure we had understood this correctly.  Not only was the information confirmed, but we also learned that had..."

So where did your comment come from? Certainly seems like an interpretation of the facts on your part, so I've got to ask why? Can't we at least be honest and quote correctly and not editorialize, or is there another agenda?

Onto other issues

"The person also told Lakeview that the Government approval of an LNG Plant was contingent upon Interoil finding an internationally recognized partner, while Interoil claimed just the opposite. William Duma's ad yesterday, and the PNG Government's public response to "misleading" comments by Interoil confirms that at least this part of the Lakeview presentation is true and that adds to the presentations credibility."

What? Interoil claimed just the opposite? Suggest you read IOC's press release in Nov 2012. They clearly said approval was contingent on them finding a partner.

And William Duma's 'ad' - where did this come from, who paid for it, and why in the world would a public official place such a ludicrous 'ad?'

Enough for now - its too early in the morning to refute everything.

We may not agree, but at least be factual and don't cherry-pick things I say and misquote others (Lakeview, for example).

[admin]

Feeltheheat

More falsehoods and misdirection. What would your mother say about this behavior?

You say
"Oil Search's licences are off-shore licences. But you can continue to attempt to mislead investors into believing that they are conducting exploration activity adjacent to Elk-Antelope and that their recent investment in a completely different area justifies Interoil's find."

Fact
From Oil Search's 6 March 13 Presentation slide 27 on their website
"Also unexplored potential in large onshore licence areas adjoining InterOil exploration acreage"

You say
"Deveral wells had been drilled in the area, and every one of them had failed."

Fact
Bwata is an undeveloped discovery. And there are a number of others but I'll not waste my time looking-up the background. The point is your statement is simply wrong.

Hint - if you are going to lie or mislead, then choose lies which are difficult to detect! (At least I figure that would be a good policy.)


Misdirection

You say "It is absolutely true that Interoil attempted to mislead investors into believing that Eastern Papua New Guinea had not been explored"

Then you say in the same post (good grief!):

"I never said that Interoil "surpressed" drilling history. Only that they attempted to cover up said drilling history by telling investors that they were drilling in an "underexplored frontier""

So you've gone from saying IOC claimed the area 'had not been explored' to then saying they claimed its an 'underexplored frontier."

Which is it, and where is your proof?

As an aside, it IS an underexplored frontier - absolutely - and its clear Oil Search, Total and others realize this. Just look at the exploration well density in a proven sedimentary basin such as the Papuan Basin with well densities in other basins.

I don't see much point in going further in replying. Perhaps you ought to learn what a geologic model is. And stop making things up - its unbecoming.

[admin]

But I grow weary - I think further time spent answering you is a waste of time. You calling my lazy after an honest, lengthly answer to your post trying to educate you about reservoir engineering, is a case in point, then you accuse me of ad hominem attacks!

You won't admit you are wrong, you just try to change history by changing what you said - a moving target. Fortunately, the proof is there for all to see.

So, the moving target:

You said:
"Oil Search's licences are off-shore licences. But you can continue to attempt to mislead investors into believing that they are conducting exploration activity adjacent to Elk-Antelope and that their recent investment in a completely different area justifies Interoil's find."

I pointed out that Oil Search had an onshore license. Your statement is wrong.

But when your statement that Oil Search's licenses are all offshore is proven wrong, you ignore that and have now changed your statement to

"Oil Search has only conducted exploration activity according to the slide in the off-shore area and NOT in the onshore area adjacent to Interoil's exploration acreage."

And you then say, in an ad hominem attack on me, that
"Lying clearly suits you."

I'm sorry, but (alert - an ad hominem comment) you display a total lack of intellectual honesty. For what purpose?

Your claim that Oil Search are not conducting exploration activities onshore is ALSO wrong. To obtain the onshore license, in preparing for their bid, Oil Search would have conducted exploration activities in the area.

Next,

You say
"Several wells had been drilled in the area, and every one of them had failed."

Fact
Bwata is an undeveloped discovery. And there are a number of others but I'll not waste my time looking-up the background. The point is your statement is simply wrong.

And your 'new' statement is

"There is NO commercial production activity in Eastern PNG. Further other than LNG Energy, a penny stock, there is NO on-shore exploration activity currently ongoing in Eastern PNG."

We've gone from 'failed' to 'NO commercial production activity' and then you claim NO onshore exploration activity. What next?

Can you define exploration activity? I doubt it, so I'll do it for you - any work, including office G&G/engineering and operational planning, to evaluate an exploration area. Field geologic surveys, seismic acquisition and/or interpretation, basin model studies, etc all fall into this category. I can assure you Oil Search did such work for acquiring the block, and is very, very likely doing work on the block now as they have financial commitments and timelines to fulfill.

Whats the next iteration of your errors or lies and then misrepresentations of your previous comments? The board awaits!

But moving on....

"What is unbecoming is your refusal to support your arguments with anything other than appeals to authority, poisoning of the well with false statements, weak attempts to shift the burden of proof, playing "gotcha" with irrelevant points of information and circular logic."

1. Please provide examples of ANY false statements I made.

2. Where have I attempted to shift the burden of proof?

3. As for 'gotcha' on what you claim are irrelevant points - thats simply ridiculous. You do not know what a geologic model is, yet you claim to know whether IOC has sufficient G&G and production data to support an LNG plant decision. You make this claim with no proof, and as I've just shown, no technical knowledge. The 'gotcha' points are to make sure we know the facts ('well' becomes 'wells' and who is presenting those 'facts.'

4. Where is any circular logic? Please point out ONE instance of that in any of my posts. And just so you know, here is Wikipedia's definition of circular logic

"Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking[citation needed] or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with".
"a is true because b is true; b is true because a is true."

Now where have I used that type of logic? Pray tell. TIA,


And further

"For this I must apologize. I had thought that this quote came from Lakeview's presentation. In fact, it came from Lakeview's commentary on Value Investment Club Website.

http://bit.ly/10WYD4e

See comment #69 by britt12 on the "Interoil Corp" writeup. It is behind a registration wall but not a paywall."

So britt12 works for Lakeview? Why don't you post britt12 (obviously an irrefutable source) comments rather than forcing your reader to register for another website. Where is the proof that Lakeview made this statement?

And I note you made a mistake in your original attribution, but you simply cannot bring yourself to admit it. Wonder what other mistakes are lurking. Alert - an ad hominem comment. (Btw, I had to look-up what ad hominem means!)

Better post this before I lose it. More shortly.

[admin]

I've provided this as there are people who again coming up with the extended flow test, and this is one of the most extensive discussions I remembered took place, and Indoreservoir clearly has significant expertise in the field. That doesn't necessarily make him right, but he did argue that extended well tests are actually fairly rare.

It's also clear that the other side of this discussion is trying to run with bogus arguments (the water wells, IOC needing a permit for a long term test, DPE divulging information of that to third parties, etc.) and don't possess the same level of understanding about these issues as Indoreservoir.

(And yes, boston is terribly obnoxious when found out as Indo discovers, I also have some experience with that..)

[jft310]

Thanks for  this