1 They are trying to do the stratigraphy as they go down through the 



2 .hole and if the hole is off to some angle it is difficult to measure, 



3 and then they have a difficult time figuring out where they are, so they 



4 do not like to do that. 



5 They have no objection to doing it for production, but for 



6 exploration the closer to vertical they are the better they like it. 



7 DR. KRAEUTER: All we are doing is citing a reason why we say no 



8 rig should be closer than 500 meters. 



9 DR. GRASSLE: I do not think the technical explanation is 



10 required. 



11 DR. BOTHNER: Okay, but I do not see, then-- 



12 DR. MACIOLEK: But then it does not make sense, because how can 



13 they explore a site in the canyon if they cannot be closer than 500 



14 meters and they cannot-- 



15 (Simultaneous discussion.) 



16 DR. AURAND: Part of that depends on--Jim and I talked about this 



17 a little bit--some of it depends on how deep you are trying to go. 



18 With a 500 meter off-set you are looking at a 20,000 foot--you are 



19 aiming at a formation that is 20,000 feet down. It is not much of an 



20 off-set, so you are pretty close to vertical. 



21 If you were looking at a shallower horizon, then it would become 



22 more of a problem. That, I think, is what led to the discussion. 



23 If it was a discussion where they absolutely had to put something 



24 in the middle of a canyon, they just would not discharge it. 



25 I do not know that- -I do not know what would happen from the 



26 agency's point of view if they were trying to do that, but they have to 



27 be close to vertical. I do not think anybody ever defined what "close 



28 to vertical" was, other than the deeper you go, the further back you can 



29 be from the rim of the canyon and still approximate a vertical hole. 



30 DR. KRAEUTER: They seemed to think it was feasible for most of 



31 the basic information? 



32 DR. AURAND: In most cases 500 meters would not be a problem. 



33 DR. MACIOLEK: Okay. I think that first reason, then, probably 



34 should go to the bottom of the list because, if we are saying that no 



380 



