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.

International Frontier Resources Corp V.IFR

Alternate Symbol(s):  IFRTF

International Frontier Resources Corporation is a Canadian company, which is focused on advancing oil and gas projects. Through its Mexican subsidiary, Petro Frontera S.A.P.I de CV (Frontera) and strategic joint ventures, it is advancing the development of petroleum and natural gas assets in Mexico. It also has projects in Canada and the United States, including the Northwest Territories, and Montana.


TSXV:IFR - Post by User

Post by glaciermanon May 23, 2014 11:28am
261 Views
Post# 22592239

Devolution off to a rocky start

Devolution off to a rocky startFolks, until the local newspapers get some quotes from Husky,  I’m forced to speculate on what went so terrible wrong.      I see no evidence of a pending EA but the SLWB did invoke some extra time to review the application.      I’m not sure what was the deal breaker but it’s looks like they were asking more questions about the “CLEAN STEAM” technology and the plan to incinerate all natural gas.
 
“ The Board does not feel it can issue authorizations at this time without adequate response from ITI on the following issues. 
 
1) Husky has proposed to flow test for a total of 240 days. Reviewers have noted that  this period seems excessive given that Conoco Phillips only tested for 120 days. 
 
Since flow testing duration is outside of the jurisdiction and technical expertise of the Board, will ITI evaluate the need for 240 days of flow testing and regulate accordingly? 
 
2) The Board is considering placing requirements on the proponent to submit as part of  annual reporting the results of; well pressure integrity tests on all wells, cement bonds  logs from all wells, and microseismic monitoring undertaken during hydraulic fracturing. 
 
Since the Board does not have the technical expertise to verify these reporting  components, is ITI able to provide to the Board, at the time of reporting, verification on the accuracy of these items? 
  
3) The Sahtu Renewable Resources Board is concerned about well bore integrity in permafrost zones and does not believe that Husky’s eight holes within the region prove that the wells can be safely constructed. 
 
Will ITI verify that well bore construction plans are sufficient and will withstand permafrost thawing and subsidence around the well? 
 
4) Within the Preliminary Environmental Screening Report the potential for changes in groundwater and surface water quality were identified. The prime mitigation measure ensuring that water quality is not affected depends on regulations set out by ITI. 
 
Can ITI confirm that well construction plans are suitable and that regulations administered by ITI are capable of minimizing impacts to groundwater and surface water quality? 
 
5) Reviewers recommended an economic evaluation that compares the cost of shipping gas to Norman Wells vs. incinerating during flow testing.
Will ITI assess the need for such an evaluation and, in the case that it is required, will ITI  review its adequacy. 

Bullboard Posts