Hey @danpech how goes it! @sharks37 told me about this one and I...

Hey @danpech how goes it! @sharks37 told me about this one and I did a little digging.

A major (for me) difference is how the 2 companies (i.e. ELK and Denbury Resources) describe the Grieve Project. Since I see you've spoken to the ELK CFO maybe you might like to raise this.

For the past 3 10Q filings for DNR (including the one filed March 1st, 2017), they have said the same thing which is the following:

Grieve Field. In the second quarter of 2011, we entered into a farm-in agreement, under which we obtained a 65% working interest in Grieve Field, located in Natrona County, Wyoming, in exchange for developing the Grieve Field CO₂ flood. We completed a three-mile CO₂ pipeline to deliver CO₂ from an existing CO₂ pipeline to Grieve Field in the fourth quarter of 2012. During the third quarter of 2016, the Company and its joint venture partner in Grieve Field reached an agreement to revise the joint venture arrangement between the parties for the continued development of the field. The revised agreement provides for our partner to fund up to $55 million of the remaining estimated capital to complete development of the facility and fieldwork in exchange for a 14% higher working interest and a disproportionate sharing of revenue from the first 2 million barrels of production. As a result of this agreement, our working interest in the field was reduced from 65% to 51%. This arrangement will accelerate the remaining development of the facility and fieldwork, and we currently anticipate first tertiary production by the middle of 2018.

The big point of divergence .... "first tertiary production by middle of 2018" which does not match  what ELK is saying. Makes a big difference in that whole earnings picture that Brad paints

Good luck

Regards