a reply to post scepticism

Hey everyone,

It appears that several of you are quite sceptical of my more recent posts and I’d like to answer a number of your questions. To begin with I am not associated with or employed by Golden Gate Petroleum Ltd, I work independently as a Director of Geochemistry and a Chemical Engineer for PetraCryst Mineral Exploration Ltd based in Sydney, Aust, as I’ve stated previously. I acquired some shares for GGP and have continued to do so simply due to the high probability of successfully locating further petroleum producing wells in the Permian Basin that are associated with pre-existing known petroleum deposits. Almost all of GGP’s Texas-Louisiana operations are located in the vicinity of historically producing wells, currently producing wells, highly favourable Geological features such as the Fausse Point Salt Dome petroleum trap, and the organic-kerogen rich palaeosediments of the Permian Basin.

I have been making an effort to post interesting, informative and accurate critiques of the current progress made by GGP within their contemporary operations, however I do work in the industry under “shift work” conditions in remote districts, and commonly either don’t possess the facilities or the reception to access the internet. The way I choose to deliver posts, is up to solely myself and so I produce them in a way that is natural for me, as creating referrals and reports is common practice in my industry and vocation. I would have thought the opinion of an industry working geoscientist who understands the common practices and decisions a company must make in order to prosper during both exploration and production operations would have been much more valued. Especially when it is these operational factors which directly affect the company’s prosperity and hence its share price. Lastly I fail to see the issue with footnoting the company that I am employed by, and receive this critique as both immature and unnecessary. I’m quite passionate for my company, especially its geochemical sector which I’m pleased to be directing.

To all of you who have valued the contribution that I’ve been making, examining GGP’s drilling and production situations, your posts are much appreciated,

Cheers,

Geochem.

P.s. Gas, is genetically associated with oil, and coal (as well as kerogen and macerals). In order for gas to form, unless it was produced by bacterial methane respiration under surface or near surface pressure and temperature conditions, gas is inherently formed by the maturation of oil under increasing pressure, depth and temperature subsurface conditions (Figure 1). Of course different organic starting materials typically result in the formation of different types of petroleum. E.g. woody tissue upon burial is exceedingly gas prone, where as spores are much more oil prone.

Figure 1

http://oilandgasgeology.com/