Good contribution from many I shall agree, Darcy and Tse to name only some , certainly nice to hear of some of the positive sides on this play, but for those who do not know CaliforniaDreaming, allow me to suggest that you would be very ill advise to brush his comments under the carpet and assign it a basher's rating, Just because it does not meet with your positive inclinations or hopes! There is after all 2 sides to a coin.
To some his comments might be interpreted as being delivered with an 'attitude', dunno maybe they are but after 7 + years around here and crossing path with him here and there - let me assure you that ignoring his comments could prove to be a fatal mistake. He was raised in an oIl environment and breast feed with OIL !
He might have an attitude at times and he might not be a perfect visionary person but allow me to suggest that he can run circle around most here when it comes to the Oil Industry and valuation of an Oil Company !
What do I take from all of this ping ponging going on.....I take and read that some red flags are up on this play..and caution should be exercise.
Oddly yesterday jdchen raised a very good question which everyone ignored and as far as I know, no one even cared to comment on it.
How does one explain the discrpancy between the July news release and Yesterday's news release....let alone the fact that the wording in both is rougly a copycat of their VERY ENCOURAGING statement ( as if we never heard that one). Off course, you all know what I am referring to ...right?
This is what was said on July 10.
The consolidated Discovered Total Petroleum Initially-In-Place for Tom Shot Bank Field from RPS is as follows:
| P 90 | 59.6 | MMstb |
| P 50 | 100.0 | MMstb |
| P 10 | 168.0 | MMstb |
Prospective Oil in the U 9 Reservoir with a GPOS (Geologic Probability of Success) of 76%
| P 90 | 8.62 | MMstb |
| P 50 | 26.5 | MMstb |
| P 10 | 58.3 | MMstb |
This is what is said on August 27.
| Reservoir | 1C | 2C | 3C |
| Reservoir U 3.0 | 0.97 MMstb | 1.74 MMstb | 2.84 MMstb |
| Reservoir U 4.0 | 0.08 MMstb | 0.46 MMstb | 1.19 MMstb |
| Reservoir U 7.0 | 3.90 MMstb | 14.64 MMstb | 41.00 MMstb |
| Reservoir U 8.0 | 0.75 MMstb | 3.02 MMstb | 7.96 MMstb |
| Reservoir U 9.0 | 1.02 MMstb | 2.56 MMstb | 4.66 MMstb |
| TOTAL | 6.72 MMstb | 22.44 MMstb | 57.65 MMstb |
and with additional Prospective Resources in the U 9.0 of:
| Reservoir | 1C | 2C | 3C | GPoS |
| Reservoir U 9.0 | 2.09 MMstb | 6.53 MMstb | 14.37 MMstb | 76 % |
Off course you know that P90 = 1C P50= 2C and P10 = 3C.
===================
So tell me .....how in the heck did suddenly the report from the same outfit RPS, went from P50 at 100 mmstb on July 10 to an increase (for according to More the following TOTAL is an increase) ...2C= 22mmstb ?
Going from 100 mmstb in July 2012 to 22 mmstb in August 2012 is not an increase in my book, what is it in your book?
=============
Better yet acclaimed on July 10 was the following....
Quote > The U 7 Certified Discovered Total Petroleum Initially-In-Place in the U 7 Best Estimate P 50 or 2C increased from 6.57 Million Barrels of Total Petroleum Initially-In-Place (NSAI) to 65 Million Barrels of Total Petroleum Initially-In-Place.
Kindly compare that to what is reported above and highlited in Yellow for Reservoir 7 !
=======================
Obviously one is certainly allowed to be puzzled by all this and wondering what kind of horsedong we are being feed ?
=============
Lasty, and as an FYI, opening a Data Room is not stricly limited to finding a buyer for the Corporation, but also yields itself to inviting parties to review details of the Field and invite potential parties to buy a Working Interest to develop the field - which as we all know Mira cannot do on its own right now financially, nor will the upcoming $2.5 million allow it to start any poking.
Allow me to add that if you all recall, very nice of Mira to have the option to call in the loan within 20 days notice - but do recall they had similar options in the past and the outcome was the debt got converted into shares by the Prime Holder ( who happened to be our major shareholder), not the other way around !
==================
I still hold a rather large postion in this play but frankly More and his 'very encourage' statements are nothing short of rasing question marks and I would prefer a he_c_k of a lot more concreate deliveries versus lips galore. And for sure one he_c_k of an explanation for the discrepancies between the reported July interpretation by RPS and August.
That's just me mind you, to each it's own !