still voting no, page-11

"A post of mine that got wiped out by the recent event reflect that my $20 is based on a near fully developed field"

Grieve is funded to full development but it is currently only worth $2-3, so on your assumptions there is $18bo upside over the next 12months and Grieve will be valued at ballpark $120mil or $1per share pre dilution. Add that to the fact even stripping 40% of the asset backing per share would not be enough cash to fully develop a chemical flood at Ash Creek. $22mil+ was the figure to develop 1/3 of the Grieve field, but now after we account for niobrara, working capital etc you think somewhere between $3-10mil will be enough to develop Ash creek.

So lets sum it up based on your figures holders have lost 33% or 33cps of Grieve, 33% or xcps of Ash creek in return for fast tracking Ash creek 6-12months. So we have enough to buy the long lead time items but not enough to buy the chemicals?? Great idea. Reminds me of the capital raising that was earmarked to purchase long lead items for a chemical flood at Grieve that Elk could not fund.

If you read it, re read it, think about, re read it again use a pack of smarties to add and subtract maybe you will understand why I am so concerned. You might call it vindictive, I call it knowing too many people who have taken a bath on this stock and are stuck here until Grieve is factored into the shareprice hoping that more value wont be wiped from their holdings before then.