RE: RE: Mene, mene..."...but remember that the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence"
True. Just the drop in SP to the
.65 level after announcing a supposed great test is problematic? Remember they have tested this already - they know what they have (or do not have) except for the results of an extended well pressure build up test. (Which is most useful for evaluating tight low productivity plays). If the reservoir is really good the results are obvious quite quickly.
While they had a good IP at their vertical Roncott well remember that all the offsetting ex-Ryland horizontal wells were pitiful and the recently completed Cenovus well just to the east - a two leg horizontal drilled with a cored strat test hole as a guide - had an IP of 5 bopd at a very high water cut?
The Spearfish is an interesting play - and while I am not overly enthusiastic about it except where there is proven existing vertical production - it is pretty skinny on reserves.
But at
.07 it doesn't cost too much to take a flyer on this one - but I would have expected the SP to have performed a little better if the Porcupine Hills Re-entry was a "Gooder!" I could be wrong. (I often am it seems).
GS (I hold no shares and do not plan on buying any. But I have some friends who think it is not a bad bet. We shall see. And yes with Google these days almost everything can be found out very quickly. The Old Testament quote is a cornerstone of Western Culture - I didn't think it was that abstruse...).