Guys, the the 3m estimates was not wickermans but mine based on...

Guys, the the 3m estimates was not wickermans but mine based on 15% recovered of the 21m as chemeical recovery extracts some 15% to 25% based on research papaers. However, I may have got the 21m (or 18.3m as subsequently used by the Ryder Scott report as being able to be extracted using CO2) wrong as this is recoverable from EORI. the 15% to 25% should be based on what is in the ground remaining that can be extracted using chemical flooding.

I tried to get people to look at what wickerman posted particularly the link to the masters energy wedsite who are involved in chemical flooding and have a field of some 31m (not sure if this recoverable using chemical flooding or oil in the ground) where they estimated costs extra for the project.

What the master energy website clearly highlighted was that chemical recovery is a proven techonology and was profitable in the $85 per barrel range.

The advantage of chemical flooding is that the capital requirements are much less and ELK can have 100%. Given ELK has positive cashflos of some $6-7m per year, could fund internally or trough some borrowing.

Try to some research as to what the potential recoveries ie saleable volume from chemical flooding and post.

I think the thing we are waiting for is the chemical flooding feasibility. But dont know the timing. given it is a uni, dont think it will be held up the way the Ryder scott report was due to so much work. Just dont know.