Replies to post #17206 on Zion Oil & Gas Inc (ZNOG)

[Mr. W]

Good questions.

It's hard to get a read on Zion because we have not heard from them, but apparently, Tisdal has before today's meeting.

Not sure what to take and leave out of all of it.
We need to hear from Zion Oil.

If they can email some of us, they can email all of us.

[tisdal]

Imperial, I will do my best :-)

First of all, let me start by saying that I am speculating and its all IMHO. I appreciate you calling me out when I get what could be considered carried away.

Tisdal - Up till now, I've seen things as you do, pretty much, but as regards the following, this is no longer the case.

Specifically, I would appreciate you elaborating on what you said, which was

Quote:
"This implies somewhere at the end of June which tells me they have what they are looking for in the primary zones and see no need to test the secondary zones nor will they attempt to test the other 2 zones that are not part of the original test program"

When Zion says

As such, we will not be releasing any information until we are concluded with the initial testing results of, at least, the primary targets. This should be weeks, not months unless there are unexpected mechanical failures.

There are three primary zones. It takes 7 to 10 days to test each zone. One zone is completed, there are two left. Zion started testing the second zone last Sunday.

That implies that starting last Sunday, there are 20 days of testing to get through the primary zones. Sunday was June 3, if they do not test on Shabbat, and you assume a day to transition from one zone to the next, that implies it will take 24 days. That would place completion of testing the 3 primary zones on approximately June 27.

Zion says they are working with the petroleum commissioner on the final report and that they will not be late for the June 30th report date. Therefore, IMHO, Zion plans to complete testing and analysis of at least the first 3 primary zones by June 30. Again, I am speculating that this is what is meant when they say "weeks, not months".

-----

Specifically, why does it tell you that they see no need to test the secondary zones? The specific wording you quoted says:

Quote:
at least, the primary targets

This could be an over statement on my part; however, if the first three primary zones are commercial, testing of the two secondary zones may become optional at that point, just as the 2 zones of interest that are not part of the original test plan appear to be optional and could be explored later after production has been established.


which is altogether different than concluding that it implies they see no need to test the secondary zones. "At least" is clear and it does not mean that they can logically be concluded to not be testing.... and so forth. It just does not follow, IMHO. Sorry.

No need to apologize. We both have opinions as to what it means and we may disagree. That's okay too :-).

------

And, following along the same line of thought, there is a similar problem with saying

Quote:
nor will they attempt to test the other 2 zones that are not part of the original test program

I just don't see the connectors internal to any logic that would cause you to conclude these two things and, in case I'm missing something, I'd appreciate you fleshing your reasoning out a tad.

They could spend time and money testing the '4' secondary zones or they may not. Again this is speculation, but I am not convinced they will see the need if they already are aware that the primary zones contain commercial quantities. Moving to production and generation revenues may be the priority and getting back to the potential of the 4 secondary zones at a later date after they are generation revenues may be justified.

Hope this helps to understand my logic. Part of the continued license development report will contain 3D Seismic. It may be more cost advantageous to examine those 4 secondary zones through the 3D seismic research while they are making money. IMHO ;-)

TIA

Imperial Whazoo