RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Economic Viability of Kavango ProjectLetsmake1 wrote: TurnToTheRight wrote: But that is exactly my point, just because there is a "petroleum kitchen" does not mean that there is necessarily a producable reservoir that currently exists - which in a conventional reservoir is contingent on the presence of "traps" with very minimal permiability (shale or salt would be the most common).
Source rock is worthless unless there is oil associated with it - sometimes the source rock is the hydrocarbon bearing formation and sometimes the hydrocarbons have migrated - at the end of the day no one is paying for source rock, only producable hydrocarbons. Would you be able to point me to where exactly the RECO states the goal is to drill source rock? Does anyone know if there is a table of formations for the Kanango, much like the AER has for Alberta? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I would like to undersatnd why anyone would want to prove source rock and not hydrocarbon presence in appropriate thickness associated with producable geology.
Hey Tehran
Don't you just love these newbies...joined Dec 19th...only posts are about RECO and claims of all things he/she is an engineer
There is more info on RECO site than any investor could ever hope for
At least you have to give the new wave of shorts/bashers credit they at lease take a shot at trying to be credible...LOL
GO RECO GO!!!
Hahahah, yes, brand you bashers trying very hard to plant the seed of doubt in investors' minds. I do not care what they say, I have been with RECO for several months now and each day I am even more excited about the project.
Some here, or the insiders, will be billionaires, I will be just a very very very wealthy person if our predictions are correct.
Yes and that 500,000 has been crossed some time ago by a large margine.
I do not want to be rude because of Christmas season so I just say 'stuff it' bashers.
Sorry for spelling boys.