beat the bot, page-50

The long term estimate used in the Grieve NPV was $85. If you refer to the estimates in the master energy website (again a very good inforamtion source explaining chemical flooding) also used similar figures for their chemical flooding exercise. So chemical flooding is profitable at that price. Also a thought is that with the lower price for oil, the negiations for the cost of CO2 should also be effected. For example if cost to production was say non-CO2 cost is $20 and oil selling at $120, the $100 gross profit would be the max the CO2 supplier could charge. If oil is now only $100, then gross profit is only $80. so ELK wouldn't want to get into a fixed price contract with the CO2 supplier which could result in a loss for ELK because some shareholders just wanted the contract signed.

Technical the cost of the CO2 should be equivalent to the next best alternative ie chemical flooding. so we wait for the Uni report on chemical flooding. This is just a hypothetical - not spoken to any one

Any thoughts otherwise.