May or may not be true, but i don't see how 77% water cut on its own would make the field uneconomical in itself> any petro geos hear other than amateurs. I thought south east texas had water drvie in the 79%?
A leak from a friend of yours at Dana, they have good trust in you then!!! which is why very few people will trust your information, if you've got it right an RNS will be out very shortly (within an hour or so) as the boards are monitored by each and every organisation. get it wrong, and you'll have to change your name!!
and you really think if pharos was as you say, it would mean parkmead wont go anywhere all year, pharos is just a very small part of the jigsaw. It sounds more like you are trying to scare a few people. Long termers know this is going up so you are wasting your time.
I got this information PRECISELY from a Dana Employee who specifically work with the geologists. Its up to you guys to believe it or not. I really don't care. I just wanted to put some correct info up. This board is full of speculation about what Parkmead and Dana are going to do, constantly asking why they haven't revealed the data on Pharos. NOW you all know why.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.