ash creek npv, page-31

Dear Hectobar, it seems you have a pervrse interest in ELK and this, apart one or two other posts, you make. I agree that many of us here are positive about ELK's prospects based on what is writte/announced etc. I am sorry that all we can do is hypthosize about ELK's prospects and you are right that we shouldnt be so positve trying to ramping this stock particular we started at 70c.

Here is some balance for you so that the informed reader can reflect the risks of ELK, and not just the psoitives that we ramp all the time.

The Risks

Niether CO2 or chemical flooding work on shannon or for Grieve (the Ryder Scott required indicated CO2 is possible for Grieve, but nothing about chemical flooding) - hence the wait for uni of oklahoma report on shannon and grieve

We cant get any CO2 for Grieve or shannon - however, we know that companies are venting CO2 and have permits for only a specificied time before they are forced to pump into EORI projects such as Grieve or shannon. If we cant get CO2 now will need to wait until next lot is available after other projects have finished there flooding. Accoridngly, it is a waiting game either we get it now or latter. also Rancher oil is having financial difficulties and their contract may become avaialble.

Appropriate Price for CO2 - Suppliers arent dumb so they will be trying to squeeze as much cost out of the supply arrangement as possible. Hope ELK does not succumb to pressure and pays a silly price.

Alternatives avaliable - if CO2 is not forthcoming for Grieve, chemical flooding could be used. but this is not proved yet as the Uni of Oklahoma will confirm or reject

Chemical flooding - the cost is not low enough to allow chemical flooding

chemical flooding is not used by ELK before and dont know anything about it. Again uni of Oklahoma report will determine. Also chemical flooding is a proven and cost effective approach, particularily for small oilfields such as Shannon, and to a lesser extent Grieve

price of oil drops below breakeven price- oil price is dropping so this is a big risk. but then RS used $85 per barrel as projection for grieve NPV.

Total collapse of financial markets resulting in no funding avaialbe for any project. If that is the case, mmight as well pack up our bags and go home.

JV can not be found for Grieve. Could use Shannon, if chemical flooding can be applied, on an incremental well by well basis to increase revenue to fund Grieve development also on a well by well basis.

As to news, ELK have told us that news is forthcoming. But then ELK management could be lying and are decietful bunch.

And i agree that useless bantter should be stopped on the eLK thread and only valid and informed and reserched comments are provided rather than the uniformed or baised comments by some posters.

what other risks are there?

Hectobar, if you can identify any other risks that I havent mentioned, it would be appreciated to provide us ELK rampers with some come uppence and put us into some sought of reality check