News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Krombacher

12/27/13 1:03 PM

#283606 RE: badog #283603

Didn't the DanaGas report clearly spell out that no oil was found? In fact, that's exactly what the company said.

Maybe those feeling "mistreated" just wanted to desperately believe that oil was found.

Hasn't that been your whole point over all of these years? Should I link to your own posts to prove it?

Krombacher
icon url

Gremlin9999

12/27/13 1:04 PM

#283608 RE: badog #283603

I don't remember the company saying they got "expected results" from the drilling in the JDZ. Do you have a link to that statement.
icon url

steelwundrin

12/27/13 6:47 PM

#283638 RE: badog #283603

ERHC did in fact state that results were in the expected quantities, which at its worst is indeed a lie. At a minium it was an uninformed mis-statement. I will search for the exact link to that statement, but it was clear that ERHC did state that results were as expected. What they meant to say is that the reservoir sands and traps were encountered as expected. Unfortunately, a commercial amount of crude oil was NOT encountered. Very similar to HDY's experience. Everything looked as expected from the seismic, but the oil had migrated leaving an empty bucket.

EEL's 2011 annual report:

" Prospectivity
...While the discovery in the Bomu 1 well of gas rather than oil was disappointing, the reservoir sands and traps were, by and large, encountered as expected."