- 24 -
involving EOR technology with terms similar to Cromwell's license
with Elektra that reflected substantial fixed fees for
technology.
(8) Ham’s vague testimony regarding the existence of proven
methods of recovery of oil from the Utah and Wyoming tar sands is
not credible. Ham incorrectly treats as a "proven" technology a
technology which is technically feasible, even if only minute
quantities of oil are recovered and regardless of the economics.
Ham makes vague reference to tests in the Utah tar sands
conducted by Shell, Laramie Energy Research Center, and the
Energy Research and Development Administration, but he provides
no specifics as to the results of the tests so we can evaluate
their relevance to these cases. In contrast, respondent's expert
Henry J. Gruy, provides specific details and analysis of four
Utah tar sand projects. The evidence indicates that these
projects were not commercial successes.
Petitioners challenge our finding in Krause v. Commissioner,
99 T.C. 132 (1992), that there were neither proven nor probable
reserves of oil on the leased tar sands properties and that
commercial development was highly speculative. None of
petitioners' experts, however, did a reserve study for any of
Cromwell's tar sands properties. Only Gruy completed reserve
studies, and his conclusions are consistent with the Court's
findings.
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