sharks,I think you are plainly wrong about the "spacing...

sharks,

I think you are plainly wrong about the "spacing issue".


AOGCC's Determination of 3 September clearly ORDERED:
"Buccaneer's (sic) is authorized to continue drilling the Kenai Loop 1-4 well. No testing of the Kenai Loop 1-4 is allowed without the prior written approval of the Commission after Buccaneer has provided notice to CIRI, DNR and the MHT. Any approval shall be contingent upon Buccaneer's agreement to provide all data obtained as a result of the test to both CIRJ and DNR.
No production may begin from the Kenai Loop I-4 well absent prior written approval of the Commission and the filing of a pooling agreement."

Surely BCC would have received that by 6 September.


On 10 September BCC issued KENAI LOOP # 1-4 WELL – DRILLING REPORT # 5 which states:
"Depth: 10,430’ Measured Depth ("MD") / 10,233’ True Vertical Depth (“TVD”)"

Activity: We are currently drilling ahead and expect to reach our total depth of 10,897’ MD shortly.

After reaching total depth, wireline logs will be run as per the evaluation program."

The "spacing issue" was NOT mentioned.

I am very tempted to qualify the "activity statement" in view of the other information. However - for obvious reasons, i.e not to cause problems for HC and/or myself - I will leave it to others to reach their conlusions.

Time will tell whether my earlier expressed view that solving the "spacing issue" may require arbitration in view of CIRI's strong oposition: "On July 30, 2013, CIRI protested Buccaneer's application and requested that the public hearing go forward as scheduled."

Anyway AOGCC's conclusions state:
"Any issues regarding whether Buccaneer is in compliance with DNR regulations should be adjudicated by DNR, not by AOGCC."
That process will IMO most likely take months!

To argue that the "spacing issue" is not material is IMO simply wrong as it appears to prevent timely testing.