Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Longford Energy Inc V.LFD



TSXV:LFD - Post by User

Comment by HHdocon Feb 09, 2011 8:53pm
209 Views
Post# 18106243

RE: 5000/day and 132 mill UNRISKED in the ground

RE: 5000/day and 132 mill UNRISKED in the groundMaysteeler, unbelievable statement!

Taxdemico earlier conceded that he was only expecting a 100% increase but was pretty impressed to see a 260% increase.

Maysteeler rounds a 260% increase to 300%.

Neither says anything to indicate that they have read or understand the details of this new reserve report.

On January 26, I pointed out that lfd's seismic map on their presentation was a potential alert that the Chia Surkh reserves may in fact be lower and not higher. This has been confirmed by to-day's report. Best case reserves for the Jeribe are now 60.2 million barrels, not 132 million as previously indicated. This is a huge hit and should be reason for a big concern on the viability of this project. Upside gas in the Shiranish and associated condensate are not much help. There is some newly recognized potential in the other prospects, but these are likely risky and down the road. LFD does not provide the chance of success for these prospects and does not indicate how much of the prospective resources are associated with the Chia Surkh structure?

Sensible readers (hi everybody) should disregard blatantly ignorant comments posted by those posters who clearly do not understand the implications of this new report.
<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>