And there I was thinking you were a rude, poorly educated fool lacking in intellectual integrity. While I continue to wait for the numerous apologies this oaf owes me, Im glad to see jake002 has received an opology.
Rocket boy continues: "i (sic) still stand by what i (sic) said about our Gas Commercilisation (sic) plant. it (sic) has always been on the agenda."
Now, you will recall how rocket boy led us to a document which showed this not to be the case. This should be good!
He continues: "eg, (sic) from the march (sic) Quarterly Report 2010; Sub heading:Wet Gas Business, "In early March Gaffney, Cline & Associates delivered a high level screening study of independent development options for commercialising the Companys (sic) multiple Wet Gas discoveries in PEL 106. This has now been reviewed. As a result, the company will be undertaking further work examining in more detail two of the options, independent liquids stripping and small scale LNG production."
First, if you are making a direct quotation rocket boy you should use quotation marks so we all know what youre doing- although you missed that week of fourth class didnt you? Anyhow back to the point rocket boy was trying so unsuccessfully to make, there I was thinking we were talking about the long forgotten CO2 stripping venture with Cool Energy. No mention of that here rocket boy- you OBVIOUSLY dont read your own documents.
The whole descriptive "Wet Gas" dates, of course, to the advent of BL- prior to that it was a gas project with some associated liquids. Then, as we have established, the gas was unsaleable and needed CO2 stripped- GOG conducted a feasibility study and found it was a no-goer, then another study which has disappeared into the ether. Co-incidentally BL then began referring to it as a "wet gas" project, ie he was implying that the commercially viable aspect of these finds was in the associated condensate, not in the gas (which had previously been the important part!). Then, (and only then), is priority in commercialisation options given to "Liquid Stripping"- prior to then it was ALWAYS the CO2 stripping venture! Anyhow, I'll spell it out for those whose education and/or intellect aren't quite up to working this out. The idea of "liquid stripping" is that the gas is unsaleable and associated liquids need to be "stripped" from it, much as the CO2 needed to be "stripped" from the gas pre-BL. As for small scale LNG, lets see what happens with companies who are considering this option with "sweet" gas close to transport routes before we discuss it further- its only there to show that BL's buddies, the experts, are offering alternatives, not as a "real" option. At the moment we are dealing with "sour" gas on an uneconomic scale without major transport routes in the immediate proximity.
Rocket boy again: "from the 20:20 Investor Series June 2010:Our wet gas business, "Multiple commercialization options liquids stripping, small-scale transport LNG or gas sales into regional pipeline system. (sic) "interesting, no opinion, JUST FACTS."
Now this quote does mention sales into the network. (rocket boy quotes this again- he obviously doesnt read replies to his own pitiful ramblings the last time he quoted this one! Then and now I'll point out that the gas is unsaleable- that's what we're "discussing" here.)
You'll notice two points- first it is a third priority option, after those raised previously (see above). But "interesting, no opinion, JUST FACTS" this is not. What it is is the re-iteration of an old document with a minor addition which it gives low priority. NO MENTION of the issue we are discussing, ie the CO2 stripping plant at all rocket boy UNLESS we look through your spin doctors rosy glasses and draw an interpretation which the quote doesn't support, ie your interpretation and not a fact in sight!
rocket boy now REALLY shows his ignorance: "On the issue/concerns of the environment and associate waste, i always thought that that was the concern of the operators of the wells."
We aren't talking about site remediation or rehabilitation here rocket boy- those ARE the operators purview. This would cover things like topsoil management, handling any spills, water management, revegetation, removal of structures on abandonment etc. What I raised and you have assiduously ignored for weeks is an issue fundamental to this project, ie the use of fraccing fluid and associated effects on aquifers. Now, I'll spell this out for you- the gas which may or may not be contained in deep coal and shale in Lingo's Folly can't be recovered using conventional methods- it requires the use of a comparatively new technology using stimulation of the source rocks ("fraccing"). This technology has been used for some time in the USA and is increasingly raising concerns there (and I'll refer you again to my post on this subject on this forum). May I suggest that you google "New York" and "fracking"- (Witty hey?)- to get an idea of the issue- or check this out under the heading "Buried Secrets: Gas Drillings Environmental Threat"- http://www.propublica.org/series/buried-secrets-gas-drillings-environmental-threat .
In the case of Australia it is my opinion, (and I do have post graduate qualifications in the field), that this issue is even more important. ANY process which can potentially damage our aquifers (and particularly the deep aquifers), must be of concern- any Environment Minister who ignored this issue would be as big a fool as you rocket boy!
Back to rocket boy: "ohh (sic), and let's not divert ourselves from our New Oil play, "Chiton 1 is only the first step toward's (sic) a very lucrative OIL play."
All I'll say here is that it will need to be- once the DLS Cooper permits are disposed of, (and your mate BL has missed his self-imposed deadline on that hasn't he), this will be GOG's only cash flow! It will need to be as prolific and long lasting as the DLS fields it replaces.
And to conclude, rocket boy again: "So, has anyone got that update on the cooper (sic) flooding yet, noticed anns out by the Co's, (sic) STX and STU started drilling in the cooper (sic) end of june (sic). some (sic) peoples (sic) views say it should be agoer (sic) by mid july (sic), comment's (sic) anyone.
Nine errors in just over two lines- poor by even your low standards rocket boy! And nothing new from the company so here's what Ive written previously: On 20/4 I posted this: 'So, July-September to get a drilling rig onto the acreage.... That will be BEFORE any 3D seismic is shot.... BUT probably after the existing well is back on line.... So May/June recommence production (at the earliest), July/Sept commence drilling programme, Sept/October 3D seismic?' And on the 29th this from the DLS website: 'Due to the weather delay Drillsearch and Joint Ventures have been granted six month suspension-extension leverage on some of the permits. Also, drilling rigs have been delayed and in effect drilling will commence in about mid-July and seismic acquisition will commence in the fourth quarter of the year 2010.' Still stands rocket boy unless your mate in Bourke has something to add!
TR
DLS Price at posting:
57.0¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
