1 DR. VALENTINE: I think the 1,000 feet in that case was that they 



2 wanted to get into the Eocene limestone. You cannot entirely eliminate 



3 it. 



4 (Simultaneous discussion.) 



5 DR. AURAND: You would certainly minimize by doing that, but you 



6 could not get rid of all of it. That is a good point. That is probably 



7 the reason to prefer the 500 meter set-back. 



8 DR. KRAEUTER: If you were a company and you could get the same, 



9 it has got to be a lot cheaper, just from their point of view. It has 



10 got to be a lot cheaper than containing, transporting and doing a whole 



11 lot of other stuff. 



12 DR. AURAND: From talking to Jim and Bob, I am sure they would 



13 prefer the 500 meter set-back. I mean, they recognize, number one, the 



14 cost of taking this stuff away, and two, there would be the public 



15 perception problem. 



16 They do not want to drill a hole in the head of a canyon more than 



17 anybody else does, simply because of public relations, so I am sure they 



18 prefer the set-back. 



19 DR. KRAEUTER: Considering how few holes they have out there, the 



20 first hole they drill somewhere close is going to be an awful lot. 



21 DR. AURAND: I am no geologist, but if you are going to a deep 



22 formation and you cannot figure out what is going on 



23 (Simultaneous discussion.) 



24 DR. 6RASSLE: Okay. I think we have reached a conclusion. This 



25 phrase will now read, "This set-back would appear to have little impact 



26 on the feasibility of exploration or production drilling." It will be 



27 at the end of the list. 



28 DR. MACIOLEK: It goes at the end? 



29 DR. GRASSLE: It goes at the end, and the new one goes at the 



30 beginning--the new one that was stated by John. 



31 Okay. Are there other comments? On page 24? 



32 DR. KRAEUTER: Do we really want to include things like tools 



33 dropped off the rig in the results? 



382 



