News Focus
News Focus
icon url

rayovac812

02/22/12 9:51 AM

#11039 RE: Seraglio #11037

This is not hindsight, by the way. I have believed this all along.



It isn't genuine to appear here and make convenient statements like the above. That to say I agree with some of what you are saying, but really....isn't it too late and what exactly...from all you said needs spelled out? There is nothing new, but then you maintain that drilling didn't tell us anything new? Double standard?
icon url

rayovac812

02/22/12 10:37 AM

#11044 RE: Seraglio #11037

On the previous JV deal, if I recall it was declined because HDY thought it would be giving up too much (although terms were not disclosed)



No, it was declined because..um...whoever it was, had a CEO that thought he had HDY over a barrel and tried to change the terms they agreed to when term sheets were exchanged. This has been mentioned elsewhere. So I think your question "are there implications for other leads?" in regards to the residual oil...the answer is there certainly are. That was discussed in the CC. Oil migration is imperative to proving your system. They did that...and prior to this drilling they could only talk of the appearance of a working petro system. It is a very important data point. One that strengthens HDY's negotiating position. That is only one data point. If there was no interest, then we would not have seen interest expressed so rapidly, by potential JV's.