october, page-16

newtothegame, the Bow oil field had 30MB OOIP so it is more like Ash Creek (21MBO OOIP) in size than Grieve.

Grieve OOIP is 76MBO, calculated and confirmed by EORI and Nitec.

Chemical flooding is more suited to smaller fields and costs are considerably cheaper than CO2 flooding. That's why I think (and hope) that ELK will push ahead and flood Ash Creek first and leave Grieve for later in the hope that we can secure CO2. Although, if the economics are good I am happy to go with chemical flooding in both fields.

I expect October to be a significant month as we should hear about the following:

1. Initial results from uni of Oklahoma
2. Progress reports from ConocoPhillips to WOGC on CO2 marketing
3. Drilling approvals/JV for Montana drilling
4. Rancher's loan is due for repayment. Will it default?
5. Testing of upper sands at Ash Creek