(Total Views: 238)
Posted On: 11/06/2019 3:51:05 AM
Post# of 1034
was the well location too low on the structures and deeper than the potential hydrocarbons within those traps?
maybe i dont understand -wouldnt a shallower oil structure pierced by the well be discovered as such?
since the leviathon fields are productive in the 5-7km depth and meged at over 4 km and since depth of zn's well was limited by downhole considerations to 5060 meters(just over 5 km) i and i assume others have thought the oil might lie deeper especially as the oil shows occurred in the deep portions of the well over 15000 ft deep
the 3d was impressively finished in a very short time- much faster than initially predicted-but all of the actively has been impressively fast since the official last fundraising period ended ca june 30
previous estimates have been 3 months for interpretation of the 3d data-but no timeline for such was noted in the 10q on my quick perusal-but they obviously have moved things fast since june 30 to find a productive field to show value to raise pps to min bid price of one dollar by ca jan 4-6 rather than having to r/s to achieve such by jan 4-6
institutional investors would rather pps was higher
zn's motion for summary judgment in the main {non derivative} lawsuit as per the 10q has oddly neither been rejected or approved as per the 10q- havent followed court filings in tx but i assume the 10q accurately has summarized such
maybe i dont understand -wouldnt a shallower oil structure pierced by the well be discovered as such?
since the leviathon fields are productive in the 5-7km depth and meged at over 4 km and since depth of zn's well was limited by downhole considerations to 5060 meters(just over 5 km) i and i assume others have thought the oil might lie deeper especially as the oil shows occurred in the deep portions of the well over 15000 ft deep
the 3d was impressively finished in a very short time- much faster than initially predicted-but all of the actively has been impressively fast since the official last fundraising period ended ca june 30
previous estimates have been 3 months for interpretation of the 3d data-but no timeline for such was noted in the 10q on my quick perusal-but they obviously have moved things fast since june 30 to find a productive field to show value to raise pps to min bid price of one dollar by ca jan 4-6 rather than having to r/s to achieve such by jan 4-6
institutional investors would rather pps was higher
zn's motion for summary judgment in the main {non derivative} lawsuit as per the 10q has oddly neither been rejected or approved as per the 10q- havent followed court filings in tx but i assume the 10q accurately has summarized such
(1)
(0)
