I am not seeing evidence of lying in the posts leading up to your response, as you suggest. I think folk are finding discrepancies which need some explanation.
One line from your post says: "I have been taken to task on this for the second time by the same people who continue to deny that these flow rates exist".
No one is denying that Marion has announced flow rates, however the problems (as I understand them) are:
1. Test flows are not the same as production flows, and until Marion announce revenues from stabilised production flows (i.e. consistent flows over time), the Marion announced flow rates are promising, but not bankable.
2. Marion revenues for the March quarter did not support the flow rates from the announcements you have quoted. It appears that AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT you have quoted - that two thirds of their $336k revenue was likely to have been derived from Oklahoma (which was flowing at 1million cu ft per day at the beginning of the quarter, and was down to 700,000 cu ft per day by the end of the quarter).
3. Marion posted no production revenue listed for January 2008 on the Utah Oil & Gas publication reports, in spite of the announcement on January 16th that three wells from Clear Creek were on production.
4. Your quote of recent flows at Helper, which Marion says is connected to production - will only be able to be measured in the current quarter, as the announcement was made late in March. As such, it remains unproven at this time.
5. Unfortunately, your recent conversation with the MD of Marion (while highly desirable, and greatly appreciated) created as many questions as it answered, leaving people still uncertain of their position. For example, were the flow rates he quoted inclusive of Oklahoma and Helper, or only for Clear Creek?
The search for verifiable information is in high demand, because people's faith has been damaged.
MAE Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
