CORRECTED ECONOMICS FIGURES

Here's some new rough figures, based on the parameters that Don, 1observer provided me above. These figures are for a three well unit. Once again, I'm an english major, not a mathematician or petroleum engineer. Please double check me as I think this is extremely important. I am happy to admit when I'm wrong, and I really want to know the truth. I'd love to have somebody that actually knows what they are doing on well and project analysis chime in. Bob Ebersole

ALBERTA THAI PROJECT

well cost (2 1500' injectors and a
500 meter horizontal leg well) 7,500,000.00
Geological and Generation 1,000,000.00
pipeline and infrastructure 1,000,000.00
land costs 15,000.00
10% fudge factor 915,000.00
total well costs per unit 10,430,000.00

Gross Revenues
Assumptions, 5.2 year or 1,898 days
$60/bbl net price
1200 bbl/day net production per unit 2,272,600 bbl
Gross sales prices $136,656,000.00

expenses
royalties
1% until pay-out 104,300.00
25% for rest of productive life 34,137,925.00
5% operating expenses 6,832,000.00
total expenses 42,074,225.00

therefore net to investors= 8:1

This is obviously very economic at these figures. As I said above, if i'm off by a giant factor, please tell me as i think this is extremely important

Bob, Just a few comments. 1. Only one injector well is required per horizontal well. 2. I think it would be better to count on 900 bpd per well pair, not 1200 3. Your $60 bbl net price is probably much to high, at least for now! If CAPRI works as planned you have to determine what is crude with an API of 20 to 25 worth.

http://www.sproule.com/prices/hvyoil_history.htm

Without CAPRI, an API of 15 would be closer to the mark. I do not know about your land cost and other expenses. Perhaps someone else can chime in here. I do know that Petrobank is estimating $15,000 per flowing barrel. SAGD is probably closer to $30,000 per flowing barrel and I've heard of mining projects (Fort Hills) at over $90,000 per flowing barrel.

Don

The reason I threw in a land cost is that Pterobank obviously paid the Canadians for a lease. It may be way out of line, if they'd chime in I'd be happy. But they obviously have purchased some other acreage which is not suitable-almost any project does. A million dollars G&G adds something for their office overhead and 3D seismic, which is very expensive, at least $3 million a square mile, maybe a lot more out in the boonies of Alberta. They are upfront costs. Same way with throwing in a million $ for pipeline and infrastructure. That may be way off base, but they need an oil pipeline to the main oil pipeline going south, roads to truck in equipment, probably work camps for its employees out there. If you spread it out over 1,000 welss it really decreases, but it looks right now like there are enough fewer wells to where its a significant expense. So maybe my extra 3 million or so per well is too much, or not enough, as I said, I'm just trying to figure out if they have something worth persuing-and I have. Its worth persuing, I have decided thay have something that will make the Alberta stuff economic.

And they have something that will possibly make tertiary development here in the states worthwhile, certainly for me and my little plans. I'll be happy to email you what i'm working on so you can take a look, just send me your address to my name, 2004 after at Yahoo.com, all lower case and run together. Bob Ebersole two thousand four at Yahoo.com.

I hate to get more specific because of the spam spiders. My penis saisfies me at its present length, thank you and no, I don't need a new foreign pharmacy or a mortgage.

I just hate to either blindly accept or reject an idea unless I can understand it and look at some figures. That's why I've been so interested in quantifying this a little. And also, Don, I don't want anyone to either accept or reject this as a solution without looking at it themselves, thats why I posted back on drumbeat and have tried to be fair. At any rate, thanks for your help and feedback