sushi1,Firstly, what a pleasure it is to have your knowledge...

sushi1,

Firstly, what a pleasure it is to have your knowledge back on the ELK forum.

Now, where do I start:

From my interpretations, of the $47 million of CAPEX (including Co2 Purchases and OPEX) which is required to get the Grieve project to first production (see recent investor presentation), $28.5 million is sole funded by Denbury at no cost to ELK.

Therefore, $18.5 million will be needed by the two JV partners of which ELK can at its own election select to ask Denbury to fund its 35% share ($6.475 million) at commercial rates to then be paid back from Grieve oil production.

The $6.475 million cost that Denbury will fund on ELK's behalf to get to first oil production (should ELK choose to select which based on a relatively small amount of cash at ELK's discretion), will be offset by the revenue from the Grieve oil production (that ELK has accrued since the JV project was commenced).

Elk’s share of revenue from the Grieve Project since the Denbury JV commencement April 2011 deal could be anywhere between $120K and $180k (Grieve produced 3,250 barrels in 2011/12 and the 3 months prior to June 2011 would have been 890 barrels = 4,140 at $82/barrel = $340k multiplied by 35% = $120K). Therefore, not material in the scheme of things.

That would mean ELK will owe Denbury approximately $6.35 million. Based on ELK's share of Grieve's revenue providing conservatively $16.425 million per annum (1,000 barrels producing a margin of $45/barrel would equate to $16.425 million per annum).

Therefore, the $6.475 million debt ELK owes Denbury could be paid off within 5 months of material Grieve production, which as I state again could be expected by mid 2013 based on similar Denbury run projects.

Therefore, I do not find my posts to be misleading, nor contain false information. Simple as that.

ELK will be able to very easily fund its share of Grieves CAPEX prior to first material production and then simply pay back the relatively small amount (approximatley $6.5 million) through Grieve production.

As for your ranting about not being able to meet its capital requirements without having to raise further money, ELK will be able to do this via a number of avenues - monetisation of part of the Grieve pipeline (expected by year end 2012), ELK's EOR Syngas technology, opportunity to source debt funding now that we have 6.5 million barels booked at 2P as well as increasing Ash Creek production all prior receiving material production from Grieve.

Furthermore sushi1, all small to medium sized oil & gas companies need to raise equity to get their projects into production. No shareholder invites or welcomes dilution, but as long as the capital that is raised is used to further the value of the company, then that is the course they must take.

All the best sushi1 and please keep up your usual negativity. Its good to have you back so that we can correct your downramping.