- 20 -
property, not a tar sands property; (2) the Carmel VaporTherm
technology was unique, and water for its use would be available
at low cost; (3) testing is not critical to a determination of
the usefulness of a particular technology; (4) it was not
unreasonable to project that world oil prices would continue to
rise; (5) the Monroe field was not 90 percent depleted; (6)
Elektra had available the expertise of Todd Doscher, whose
expertise alone made the EOR technology licensed by Cromwell
valuable; (7) during the 1980's, there existed no industry norm
for the license of EOR technology; (8) there existed proven ways
to recover oil from tar sands properties, and the tar sands
properties licensed by Cromwell had reserves of oil; and
(9) Cromwell's estimates for recovery of oil from tar sands
properties using the licensed EOR technology were reasonable.
We address each of petitioners' allegations in order.
(1) Bursell's and Ham's bald opinions that Burnt Hollow does
not constitute a tar sands property are unsubstantiated and
conflict with industry definitions. The Burnt Hollow property
has an API gravity of 2 degrees and a viscosity of 1,000,000 cp
at reservoir conditions, making this property a tar sands
property under any recognized definition. Further, whether Burnt
Hollow constitutes a heavy oil property or a tar sands property
does not change the fact that Cromwell's acreage had no reserves.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011