t4p, page-12

infoseeker...

Fair comments...and I am sorry for painting you as being one of Sue's lot.

I have never really had anything against Sue12, in spite of our previous run-ins on CAZ...but when she/he posted the P&A and move the rig thread, well suffice to say I thought she had over-stepped the mark.

The fact the post was made at a critical point in the trading cylce just confirmed what I had thought of her all along.

Anyway, I agree with your approach regarding the various sources of data inflow...if only everyone on HC did the same.

The environmental issues are a real pain, but in no way terminal as Sue keeps suggesting...and whilst GDN are restricted in their movements, they are in no way prevented from following existing roads and tracks in the area, which pretty much run everywhere they might want to go anyway.

The road has approval, as has the pipeline along the road access...which in all reality is the only sensible route anyway. I have looked at the terrain in depth, and there simply is no more direct route that does not involve prohibitive ground conditions, irrespective of any "greenie" no-go areas.

Future wells, while obviously facing opposition, will be less so than the first well, due to the "development" nature rather than "explorer" nature of the well...lol...seems even if you just wanted to errect a tent in this area the greenies would be out in force, driving over the virgin terrain in their petrol hungry 4WD's, to tell you you a sitting on a grey-bellied bandicoot, who only lives directly under your tent.

lol...the point is, the greens object to everything...doesn't mean the energy starved, hydrocarbon development friendly Utah state authorites will prevent another well in a location already serviced by roads.

Just as long as all care is taken to limit damage to the natural environment...which I actually agree with 100%.

Cheers!