"that I agree with :)"Then in effect you should agree with the...

"that I agree with :)"

Then in effect you should agree with the rest of my argument.

"From here on its rolling emergency for about 2 years,"

You cant have it both ways!! if you agree that the money should be used at the bottom then it would not be used until after Grieve is flowing cash in which case it becomes irrelevant and we could have avoided significant dilution.

Yet you also state "Not funding it and insisting the company virtually close down to preserve cash is not consistent with the stated business plan of the company." So are you into preserving cash or spending it???

I consider Niobrara high risk, they have stated there intention to seek another high risk project, Hereford is likely high risk due to the borderline economics combined with the financial storm we are heading into and a chemical flood we cannot fund sounds high risk to me. Plenty of high risk projects to punt the money on. Thats why I would have liked to see the Niobrara fully farmed out as well as a water flood of Ash creek to obtain cashflow before embarking on the Chemical flood.

Who am I kidding, ELK has great cashflow over $7mil this quarter!!!

Your spend big argument is in direct contrast to your global implosion predictions.
Cheers