GETC: Geotec Thermal Generators, Inc.

[greatday8]

Geotec Thermal Generators, Inc
Shares Outstanding as of November 7,2003: 30,007,865
Dan Pepe (president) and Richard Lueck (CEO / CFO) own/control 15,790,000 (62.15%) of those outstanding shares.
Website: www.geo-tec.net/

Geotec has a 10-year exclusive, renewable license, covering North, South and Central America for the PGDBK technology which is superior to conventional stimulation and is an effective, inexpensive and safe technology used to restore and increase the output capacities of oil and gas wells. The design of these stimulations are totally unique, with 70% success in oil wells and 90+% success in gas wells. Yields average 300-500% in operating wells, and the process can be used to clean the near wellbore formation for increased and sustained hydrocarbon flow. This is a very unique process, in that it extends 100 feet in diameter, 360 degrees around the wellbore (even at depths of over 20,000 feet), which other procedures cannot accomplish.

Imagine a technology that took 14 years, several hundred scientists, and experimentation on 6500 oil and gas wells prior to commercialization, for scientific documentation.

Now think of China, Russia, India and the governments from 7 other countries that pay for and license this product and the resulting science to produce Billions of dollars in annual oil and gas revenues.

Now Geotec Thermal Generators, Inc. is exclusive for this product and technology for North, South and Central America that have approximately 5.4 Million oil and gas wells. The U.S. marketplace has about 2500 independent well operators.

Geotec Thermal Generators, Inc. is an operating oil and gas well treatment company. They bring to North, South and Central America the PGDBK technology that was developed by the former Soviet Union Military Research and Production Facility, FR & PC Altai, for the Ministry of Geology, USSR.

6 months chart of GETC:


5 days chart of GETC:


stockcharts.com/gallery?getc

[greatday8]

The PGDBK technology is superior to conventional stimulation and is an effective, inexpensive and safe technology used to restore and increase the output capacities of oil and gas wells. A state of the art stimulation technology that enhances the productivity of wells with a combination of mechanical, thermal, and chemical actions. The gas generator acts on reservoir rocks by creating multiple fractures that enhance the flow of oil and gas from the reservoir into the wellbore. These fractures are far reaching, long lasting and significantly reduce skin effect of wells. This action also dramatically increases the permeability of the wellbore region. The most valuable thing here is the technology. It took the Russians hundreds of employees, 14 years and 6500 wells to document and develop the technology. There are 12 generators for different situations, pressures, rock formations, oil saturation, water saturation, and 20 other parameters.

Some unique qualities of the PGDBK technology:
1. Uses mathematical formulas and computer programs which enables the petroleum engineer to know exactly which system should be used for each well, field and formation, and any depth and pressure. As a result, it allows the company to calculate probability curves of success and yield prior to treatment, unlike other technologies, which have tried to derive such numbers but have been unsuccessful.
2. High success rate in establishing contact with the reservoir, 70% for oil wells and 90% for gas wells.
3. Percentage increase in output, ranging from 300% to 2500%. This is not matched by any competitor.
4. It is not of an explosive nature as in the competition, but is a controlled burn.

Technology Introductions:
1. 70% success rate in oil wells, 90+% success rate in gas wells.
2. Yield increases averaging 300-500% in non-stripper wells.
3. Yield increases averaging 300-2200+% in stripper wells.
4. Yield increases, in selective formations have averaged up to 45,000 barrels of oil per year.
5. Permeability increases, 360 degrees and 100 feet in diameter around the wellbore.
6. Over 40,000 wells have been treated in 12 countries including Russia, China and India producing a minimum annual revenue of $180,000 in increased oil for each well treated, including those wells that are not successful.
7. Geotec's technology comprises two sciences/technologies. One is the manufacturing of the 12 types of generators, which is patent pending in the US. The second is the use of the generators, where, when, how, how many, and in what type of formation.
8. This science was developed by the R & D section of the Ministry of Defense for the Russian Federation for the Ministry of Geology comprising several hundred scientists that took 14 years of development, with experimentation and documentation of 6500 wells.
9. Treatments can be utilized in 80+% of wells; however higher yield wells comprise approximately 35% of all wells in Geotec's exclusive area of North, South and Central America.
10. Second and Tertiary recovery of gas and oil wells can be accomplished by many methods, however Geotec's method is the lowest cost, simple to use and works in wells to 24,000 feet.
11. Primary well treatment is also available.

The Science:
PGDBK stimulation technology enhances the productivity of wells through a combination of mechanical, thermal, and chemical actions.

Cylindrical shaped powder charges are ignited along its length, in a well, creating high pressure and temperature. A deflagration process and not an explosion.

Mechanical Action:
Rapid gas expansion overloads spaces and fractures, overcome rock's tensile strength to create several residual fractures. Fractures up to 60 feet radius from the wellbore.

The controlled rise time process, orders of magnitude below explosion process, ensures rock's yield strength is not exceeded.

The slower pressure-loading rate for PGDBK as compared with the other technologies allows a better fracture and extension without crushing the formation around the wellbore.

The pulsating action of pressured gases erodes the fracture surfaces and causes shear dislocation. This results in unhealed fractures. Propping agents are not required to hold fractures opened.

After gases are expended, a back-pressure surge action cleans out precipitates and allows easy flow through pore channels and perforations.

PGDBK design is based on the knowledge of fracture gradient and formation transmissibility

Thermal Action:
The excessive heat (reaching up to 1400 degree Fahrenheit) emitted in this process acts in two ways:

First, the viscosity of reservoir fluid is reduced in the wellbore region thus increasing the mobility of oil.

Second, the thermal melts down paraffin, asphalt, resin, and other heavy hydrocarbons to keep the flow channels opened for a long time.

Chemical Action:
Proprietary chemicals act on the formation fluid to reduce the surface tension between oil and water, thus increasing the relative permeability to oil.

Distinct Feature:
Eroded wall is a unique feature of the PGDBK technology.

The PGDBK Technology:
PGDBK generator is a set of cylindrical tools, mounted in series (braided), and conveyed on a wireline or on a tubing.

The generator is positioned at a determined depth in the wellbore. It ignites almost instantaneously upon receiving an electric signal. The generators disintegrate completely and the well is ready for production in a few hours.

The design, number of the charges, and type of tamp fluid for each treatment will depend on:
1. The geological and reservoir conditions;
2. Number and thickness of pay zones;
3. Well configuration.

PGDBK generators have temperature and pressure ratings up to 400 degree Fahrenheit and 14,500 psi respectively.
Well depth of at least 2,000 feet is desired and up to 22,000 feet.
Geotec is capable of treating other reservoirs that fall outside these desired parameters with customized generators.

[greatday8]

Geotec Thermal Generators, Inc. specializes in Advanced PGDBK Well
Stimulation Technology, which combines mechanical, thermal, and chemical actions to stimulate and fracture old (secondary) and new (primary) oil and gas wells for enhanced well production.

Oil, Gas and Coal Bed Methane (CBM) wells may start with a high production, but well have a declining curve in output, often caused by near wellbore damage. CBM wells when drilled go through a dewatering process, the product increases and stabilizes. The PGDBK technology generates high temperature through the combustion process cleaning the wellbore region of heavy hydrocarbons, reduce the viscosity of oil and enhance relative permeability of oil to water. A pulsating surge is created which cleans up solids and improves connectivity of pore spaces, thus facilitating fluid flow from the reservoir to the wellbore. The creation of long "non-healing" fractures increases permeability of the near wellbore region. A well treatment may last months up to years.

Recovering of oil and gas has three main classifications:
1. Primary, typically can recover one-fifth to one-third of the original oil/gas in the reservoir.
2. Secondary, typically can recover an additional 25-45%.
3. Tertiary, typically can recover, after Primary and Secondary, an additional 5-20%.

It matters in what a well starts with in the Primary to what additional can be recovered in the Secondary and Tertiary.

Technological innovations will be needed to recover more of the remaining reserves that are not economically recovered with current technologies. Many oil fields are in danger of being abandoned, even though they may still retain one-half or more of their original reserves. Most oil wells are abandoned, and not producing of the 2.9 million wells in the US. Only just less than 1 million are active. Recovering these remaining reserves poses technical and financial challenges.

There are studies suggesting that oil will reach its peak production this decade and will decline, gas has much longer time before reaching its peak. This shows a need for technologies that will recover additional hydrocarbon in the Primary, Secondary and Tertiary methods.

The PGDBK technology has been used to treat over 30,000 wells world wide, with a success rate of 70% for oil wells and 90% for gas wells. The technology has proven through practice to be very effective for the treatment of diverse geological conditions.

Geotec treated 20 wells in the Spring/Summer of 2000 to qualify for the transfer of technology. The results were presented in a paper prepared for and presented at the Petroleum Technology Transfer Counsel meeting in December 2000, which can be found on Geotec's web site under "Treated Wells".

Geotec's web site has additional information about the history of their technology, information and their experience with the technology. There is a segment of the market which Geotec's technology can fill to help solve the energy needs of North South and Central America.

[greatday8]

Oil and gas running out much faster than expected, says study
By Charles Arthur, Technology Editor

02 October 2003: (The Independent. UK) World oil and gas supplies are heading for a "production crunch" sometime between 2010 and 2020 when they cannot meet supply, because global reserves are 80 per cent smaller than had been thought, new forecasts suggest.

Research presented this week at the University of Uppsala in Sweden claims that oil supplies will peak soon after 2010, and gas supplies not long afterwards, making the price of petrol and other fuels rocket, with potentially disastrous economic consequences unless people have moved to alternatives to fossil fuels.

While forecasters have always known that such a date lies ahead, they have previously put it around 2050, and estimated that there would be time to shift energy use over to renewables and other non- fossil sources.

But Kjell Aleklett, one of a team of geologists that prepared the report, said earlier estimates that the world's entire reserve amounts to 18,000 billion barrels of oil and gas - of which about 1,000 billion has been used up so far - were "completely unrealistic". He, Anders Sivertsson and Colin Campbell told New Scientist magazine that less than 3,500 billion barrels of oil and gas remained in total.

Dr James McKenzie, senior assistant on the climate change programme at the World Resources Institute in Washington, said: "We won't run out of oil - but what will happen is that production will decline, and that's when all hell will break loose."

Present annual oil consumption is about 25 billion barrels, and shows no signs of slowing. That would suggest a "production crunch" - where consumption grows to meet the maximum output - within the next couple of decades.

Dr McKenzie said that on this topic the argument split between economists and geologists. "The economists think it will just force the price of oil up, which will mean it will become economic to extract it from all sorts of unusual places, such as tarry sands or deposits which are 90 per cent rock and 10 per cent oil. But the geologists say - you tell us where the deposits are and we'll find them. We've looked and we can't."

One side-effect of having lower oil reserves might be that the worst predictions of climate change would be forestalled - because there would be less fuel to burn, and therefore less carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas, produced.

The Uppsala team's estimates are lower than any considered by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose minimum estiimate for the total reserves was 5,000 billion barrels.

But Nebojsa Nakicenovic, an energy economist at the University of Vienna in Austria, who headed the IPCC team that produced the reserves forecasts, said the Swedish group were "conservative", and that his team had taken into account a wider range of estimates. Dr Nakicenovic added that, if oil and gas began to run out, "there's a huge amount of coal underground that could be exploited".

Dr McKenzie said: "We have to accept the fact of oil and gas production peaking, and get concerned with substitutes. It's not when will we run out, it's when will production be unable to meet demand.

"And 97 or 98 per cent of transport depends on it. You can use coal to make methanol to power your cars or buses. But the reality is that it's all about where the oil is."

The Gulf countries - Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates - produce about 25 per cent of the world's oil at the moment, and hold 65 per cent of the world's oil reserves.

"That's why we went to war in Iraq," said Dr McKenzie. "Gas might have comparable reserves to oil, but it's not in the right place and we don't really have the infrastructure to transport it."

www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4874.htm

[greatday8]

INTERVIEW with. Richard Lueck, CEO . OF GETC by Marketdd Newsletter, weekend
edition September 22., 2003

Marketdd contacted the CEO of GETC.OB and asked a series of questions as to the present status of the Company's Operations. We believe in updating our subscribers where possible, and for the CEO to provide as much public information on the Company's present status and future plans. Within the limitations of what Mr. Lueck could say in public, we believe he has provided us with good a perspective of their technology and where the Company plans to expands in the longterm. We hope you enjoy this format and would like you to email us if it has helped you as an existing Investor in the Company or New Investors considering investing as a result of the interview. Your comments would be appreciated. Please email your comments to [e-mail]

==================================================================================

Geotec was formed in early 1998 due to a preliminary understanding with the Russian Federation, specifically FR & PC Altai, which was previously the R & D Section of the Ministry of Defense. The understanding became a contract for the gas generators technology comprising a long term agreement, transfer of technology agreement, and patent agreement. Those were finally signed in December, 1998. We agreed to accept the transfer of technology in the summer of 2000, which we accomplished. However, we were told that we would get the export license from the Russian Federation within six months, however it took until November, 2001. Prior to this time, we had financing arrangements that were modes of shorting the stock, through at least four groups. One of which is described in press releases and federal authority activities in 2003, which is ongoing. This technology has only been licensed to sovereign nations, other than Geotec, and we cannot issue stock at 10 cents a share to receive the required funding of $5 to 8,000,000, which would utilized for a direct marketing effort. Certainly issuing 50 million shares would be a severe dilution, that was never a real consideration for management. We. therefore. chose to pursue joint ventures, that would fund Geotec without these significant dilutions that shorting forces upon those companies that are preyed upon. Although this is long response, it answers your question regarding dilution. As the CEO, I will tell you that it is much easier to sign your name and issue stock openly and freely after these circumstances, but we could see over 100 million shares that would have to be issued. We were also curtailed by a lawsuit from UltraDiamond that claimed that Dan Pepe, our President, took the technology from UltraDiamond, and that they owned it. They sued Dan, and the case was won in his favor in Sept, 2002. They filed for a new court case, which they lost in Nov., 2002, and appealed, which finally fell apart in July, 2003. Altai is still in a lawsuit regarding the lack of payment from UltraDiamond for the nanodiamond UDD, and UltraDiamond has been terminated by Altai for distribution of this UDD nanodiamond technology product. Altai also sued UltraDiamond stating that we were the rightful joint venture partner regarding the generator technology for oil and gas. Regardless, it has been a difficult issue, that is finally resolved, as of two months ago, in our favor.

With the question, and lawsuit demanding ownership in Geotec, damages, and royalties, financing, with the share price, was never a possibility.

So circumstances dictated management toward the joint venture marketing concept.

Now, it does take long to calculate our market value, being the outstanding shares times the current share price, showing the value of the company. We may issue shares for funds, but never at anything close to this share price in any volume dilution. Our Board of Directors is firm on this concept, such that we will fund the company ourselves, rather than get caught in that spiral.

Geotec's technology was developed over 14 years, concluding in 1986, whereby the Russian Ministry of Geology gave Altai 6500 oil and gas wells to experiment on to develop the technology. From the very beginning, Altai with several thousand employees, was producing the rocket propellant for the then, Soviet Space program and their ballistic missiles. With about 200 scientists dedicated to this project, they developed not only a unique product but also the physical, mathematical sciences relative to what occurs in oil, gas, and also water drinking wells, over time, with the ability to clean the "skin" and near wellbore formation, creating, at the same time, microfractures horizontally and vertically, up to 100 feet around the wellbore. In wells that had formation buildup around the wellbore, this could be cleaned and improved, even beyond where the new well was drilled. The challenge was not to have one product work for all formations, as all other technologies do, but to make, design and deliver what worked out to 12 standard gas generators that could be mixed and matched to work with shallow wells of several hundred feet in depth, to very deep wells to 24,000 feet. No other technology can come close to anything like this, and no other technology can clean the formation of bitimus (organic) material as we are capable of. We can generate, given the computer and mathematical programs, a probability curve for success, and a probability curve for yield, prior to treatment, for each well.

China, India, the oil rich former Soviet CIS countries totaling 12 countries have licensed this technology.

If you look at our power point presentation on our web site, www.geo-tec.net you will find pressure waves that can be modified, to meet the criteria for all different types of rock. We are a soft procedure that has been used in over 40,000 wells worldwide, and has not damaged a single well that we, at least, know of. We always require a cement bond log be run prior to our treatment to ensure that any existing damage would not be exacerbated by increase pressure, even though this is a very gentle procedure.The rock pressure for a specific well is exceeded with the caseless generator that completely disintegrates with use, such that no tools have to be fished out, to open the fissures and fractures. The rock is eroded, without proppants (sand is used in hydraulic fracturing). We get an effect, 360 degrees around the wellbore, 100 feet in diameter, while hydraulic fracturing typically goes northeast and southwest, to the least point of resistance in the Northern Hemisphere. Hydraulic fracturing can only be used a couple of times with decreasing success, due to the continuing contamination of the sand with oil byproducts, over time. We have no such restriction, and in operating wells have yields increasing 3-500% on average, with 70% commercial success in oil wells, and over 90% in gas wells. Hydraulic fracturing in the same type of wells produces a 50-100% increase working 30% in a commercial sense. Although we don't discuss the costs, our business plan shows a lower cost of operation than traditional fracturing, such that we can be more competitive. We do have higher engineering costs, such that fields are better to service, hence joint ventures, rather than single well treatments.

We have put out information in press releases and filings that we expected New Energy, LLC, Ecuador or J-TEX to move forward in the fall of this year. Ecuador had a horrible 50,000 barrel oil spill with a surface tank collapse. This delayed, but not by much, the final outcome in Ecuador. Small other things may have happened, however we still expect more immediate progress with these JVs, as we have stated in filings and press releases. We also expect, and have released that Ecuador (our JV partner) expects to expand into Peru, Columbia and Venezuela with his partners, upon completion of the initial Ecuadorian contract.

Our Chief Petroleum Engineer, Albert Banahene is an oil and gas engineer that has master's degrees from the number one and two schools in the world. Specifically, the Moscow Institute of Oil and Gas, and the Colorado School of Mines, where he had teaching credentials. His experience in oil and gas is extensive. Geotec's management has extensive and successful experience in managing and promoting technology. Our contacts and efforts within the Russian Federation are at the highest levels within the Government, and go back to the early 1990's. We have utilized and put up our own funds and I, for one, have not sold a single share of Geotec stock that I own personally or have in a trust. (actually, my wife and I)

Marketing and expansion are controlled by the lack of funds. We say this directly. We believe the joint ventures will bring the funds, business the ability to expand successfully in the last half of this year. Which one will come first? Well, that is a race that I don't care who wins, as long as they all finish. How much revenue, in response to your earlier question, will have to be the subject of future press releases or filings, according to the SEC rules.

(continued in next post)

[greatday8]

(Continued from previous post)

Interview with CEO.......

As to the future of Geotec's shareholders, I would say that depends on the individual shareholder. Short term, we would hope for a market response to the fulfillment of our joint ventures, one by one. If a shareholder choose to sell at this point, then we would hope to see a significant improvement from where we are now. Further, out, as the longer term success and larger amounts of significant contracts come to play, we would hope for significant improvement for longer term shareholders.

In the past 7 years or so, there has been over $40 Billion in increased hydrocarbons by utilizing this technology. We are exclusive for North, South and Central America, so we have a unique opportunity, and wells are mostly privately owned in our territory. Of course governments own wells in Mexico and South America, although not exclusively in all countries.

When you drill a new well, it is called primary production, and primary production can bring up as little at 5% to a maximum of 25-30% of the oil in ground. Our technology can increase the minimum or maximum of those numbers an additional 20-30%. Most people are not aware of just how much oil and gas we leave in the ground with we close in a well. And there are about 5.4 million wells in North, South and Central America. In the US, very few wells produce over 20 barrels of oil per day.

Our technology is used to treat near wellbore damage and "skin" damage, which is 90% of the reason for reduced hydrocarbon production. We cannot treat all types of wells, which we found out, even though the Russians knew it, during our transfer of technology. We cannot operate in unconsolidated sands or where shale barriers have to be penetrated, such as the Austin Chalk. This excludes us from about 12% of the wells in our territory. Then there are wells that are depleted, or that we cannot make work economically. Those we can easily identify given the data we analyze, and we can inform clients rather than give the illusion of success.

We are working on several other issues, that we cannot disclose until we have properly filed this information in a press release or with our quarterly/annual/material reports. Being a public company increases our costs a small amount, and until now, we have almost operated as a private company, putting in capital from ourselves or friends as needed. With the joint venture success, that turns the corner, and capitalization for further expansion should become a reality.

Regards,

W. Richard Lueck
CEO

Statements in this release, which relate to other than strictly historical facts, including statements about the Company's plans and strategies, as well as management's expectations about new and existing products and services, technologies and opportunities, market growth, demand for new and existing products and services, are forward-looking statements. The words "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "estimate," "project," "intend" and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements that can speak only as of the date hereof. This press release contains certain forward-looking statements regarding Geotec Thermal Generators, Inc., its business prospects and results of operations that are subject to certain risks and uncertainties posed by many factors and events that could cause Geotec's actual business, prospects and results of operations to differ materially from those that may be anticipated by such forward-looking statements. Readers are urged to carefully review and consider the various disclosures made by Geotec in this new release and other reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that attempt to advise interested parties of the risks and factors that may affect Geotec's business.

Geotec Thermal Generators, Inc

[greatday8]

CEO 2004 Letter to Shareholders

January 2, 2004

Dear shareholder,

We would like to thank you for your continued support of Geotec Thermal Generators, Inc.

As we move forward in the coming months, we are confident in our ability to implement our technology. The last three years have been a tremendous challenge for Geotec. First we had the shorting of our stock using questionable practices, since 2000, and in our opinion, may still have a continuing effect. We had one or more hedge funds target out company, as confirmed by Federal Authorities. Next, UltraDiamond filed a lawsuit, claiming rights to Geotec's technology.

These events, along with turbulent market conditions made raising capital a difficult task. Management believed that issuing shares under these conditions could negatively impact out shareholders. Instead, we chose to seek strategic alternatives to raise money and incurring dilution. Geotec is hopeful that focusing on generating revenues and profits through Joint Ventures will help us move forward in a positive direction.

We are very pleased with the feedback we have gotten from our Joint Venture Partners. From January 1st through March 31st, these partners have advised us that we should be able to realize specific advances within our company. Primarily, this includes, substantial capital for the purchase of gas generators, well treatment and engineering in the very near term.

We are very excited about Geotec's future and are grateful for your support. We welcome any questions you may have concerning out Company and encourage you to fill out the enclosed fax response sheet so that we can keep you informed of our progress.

Thank you for your continued support.



W. Richard Lueck
Chief Executive Officer

www.geo-tec.net/ceo_2004_letterb.html

[greatday8]

Technologies for enhanced oil/gas/CBM well production

A few thoughts on what methods will be in general use, now and in the future?

1) There are several ways to drill a well, and that wells have diameters that are set for 4.5, 5.5, 7.5 and even bigger casings. The thought is that the bigger the casing the greater the surface area to where the hydrocarbons are. Then years ago, someone thought about putting surfactants and acids down to eat away a few inches into the formation, so that the hydrocarbons would flow easier.

2) Nitroglycerin, or explosives have been used. Mostly ineffective unless the well is just the right type of situation.

3) Most consistently, hydraulic fracturing, also called sand fracturing has been used.

4) There have been many things used downhole that you can think of, from paraffin eating bacteria to all types of chemicals.

5) Propellants, like rocket fuel have also been used.

6) When you drill a well, the method you use creates interaction with the formation, and the ability of that formation to give up the hydrocarbons. The skin effect is also created, that blocks the flow of hydrocarbons into the wellbore. There is water saturation and hydrocarbon saturation and the rock pressure, or sand pocket, and different types of rocks that all have to be taken into effect.

7) The density or type of oil, paraffins, asphaltenes and many other parameters (about 20 parameters are used with the PGDBK technology in their formulas), effecting the flow of hydrocarbons.

8 ) The well flows, these dynamics change, and the flow rate slows as the conditions that interact become less favorable for flow rate.

9) Treatments, have to deal with clays or shales, that can swell with a treatment that involves water. Chemical treatments, have environmental issues, and if the water has to come back out the wellbore, which may often be the case, how do you dispose of contaminated water or chemicals

10) So many issues have to be taken into consideration.

11) There are many methods available. A petroleum engineer is needed that knows the specific methods. Which method you try, depends on the well, and the economics that you need to apply.

12) What methods will be in general use, now and in the future? They will continue to use hydraulic fracturing. Will the PGDBK technology be another?

13) Is it possible that probably 90% of productivity is due to near wellbore problems? Each well solution has to be designed to the parameters, including all the engineering.

greatday8

[greatday8]

Introduction to Q & A's which will follow:

Over the years I have used e mail to ask Rick, the CEO, many questions, which he gladly answered, when they did not conflict with SEC rules and/or confidentiality agreements.

I still have some of those e mails and I will post some of those topics I believe of interest. I will post Rick's reply and if I have my question, I will post it if I think it is needed.

I will start by making a post with some of my thoughts.

I thought some of you following GETC would be interested in reading the replies to many of my questions about Geotec's technology.

greatday8

[greatday8]

Dear Frank,

I think you misunderstand the process a bit. When we treat a well a single time, we apply a certain pressure and so much heat. It cleans some of the material out of the formation, but not a lot, into the wellbore. If we utilize this newer technique in a second treatment, or a different type of generator, we can totally clean the near wellbore formation. We now have access to a generator that will only clean the formation, and not fracture. There are cases where this is what is desired, such as unconsolidated sands or partially consolidated sands.

When you clean the formation the "gunk" or what you clean out of the formation, goes into the wellbore, and you have to swab out the material. That is cleaning the wellbore. This is separate from cleaning the formation.

The operator wanting to increase or clean can now lower the cost, if they only need or want one treatment, vs. two that accomplishes both. The cost can be substantial under a fee for service treatment.

Hope that helps with the explanation.

Regards,

Rick

[greatday8]

O.K, think of rock formations that are just that rock, now think of rock formations that are shatter rock, or sand, or what is called unconsolidated sand.

When you have oil in the unconsolidated sands, or small unconsolidated rock, if you perforate the casing, the sand or small rock fall or are forced into the wellbore. Of course, when you drill a well, you know what you have by logging the well.

So, if you have a sand or consolidated formation that would normally fall into the wellbore, instead of a perforation, you have a screen that keeps the sand or small rocks out.

Over time, that screen collects asphaltenes, paraffin, and other oil by-products that can clog the screen.

Now you can see that the screen needs to be cleaned, or replaced. Replacing is extremely difficult and very expensive. And there really is not a good way of cleaning the screens until now. Now there are a lot technical problems that 10s of types of screens, and you may not know what is there, if no one kept a record of it, or the specs, but we have a way to now do that.

So that was the purpose of the press release. Not that it means as much to a shareholder.


Hope that helps,

Regards,

[greatday8]

COMPARING PGDBK WITH COMBINED PROPELLANT/PERFORATING

June 14, 2001

Prepared by: Albert O. Banahene, SPE

COMPARING PGDBK WITH COMBINED PROPELLANT/PERFORATING

Case studies of the PGDBK technique for stimulation wells are presented in SPE # 71075. Case studies of the use of Combined Propellant/Perforating Technique have been presented in SPE #68101.

Both cases are based on the principle of generating high pressured gases in the wellbore (across) pay zones to create fractures, to reduce skin effect and wellbore damage, and subsequently enhance well productivity.

There are however many differences in the design, construction, operating procedure, and the effect of stimulation between PGDBK and Combined Propellant/Perforating Technique (CPPT). In summary PGDBK creates more fracture, longer fractures with larger widths. It is also associated with thermal and chemical effects that act on reservoir rock and fluid properties to enhance productivity.

Case studies on PGDBK have shown typical half-fracture lengths and widths of 30-60 feet and 0.35 in respectively. This is much higher than the results of the Combined Propellant/Perforating Technique, which show 4-8 feet and 0.06 in respectively for fracture length and width (see Figure 4).

Some of the reasons that make the PGDBK results superior are:

1. PGDBK is caseless and is run on a wireline and ignited from a wireline unit. The CPPT technique is tubing conveyed and fired while on tubing. Wireline is obviously much flexible than a stiff tubing and is able to accommodate generated pressure much safer than a tubing can.
2. The volume of solid pressure generating material per unit length for PGDBK is much greater than the CPPT. 3. This is because whereas the cylindrical tool for stimulation is entirely combustible and expendable material for PGDBK, the CPPT has a larger volume taken by the perforation gun. Gas pressure generation material for the CPPT is a sleeve worn over the perforating gun. The amount of gas generated and the extent and width of fracture is proportional to the amount gas generation material.
3. PGDBK is made of a proprietary material that is able to control and slow the pressure-loading rate. This reduces the possibility of crushing brittle formation and also extending fracture further into the reservoir.

The case study on SPE 68101 shows how propellant technologies can enhance oil productivity. One well was used as a controlled case using only under balance perforation. The other two wells show significant reduction of skin and increase in flow efficiency on the well test analysis. These wells have good reservoir pressures (pressure gradients of about 0.48 psi/ft) indicating wells could flow on their own. The permeability of these reservoirs is average (200-450 mD). Porosities are also good. Potential production of these Egyptian wells is about 1,000 BOPD. (6 STB/D/psi) These reservoir parameters were much better than the parameters encountered with the PGDBK case on the USA wells.

Additional Comments:

1. It would have been helpful to have production data together with welltest analysis to see the longevity of treatment results.
2. The cost involve in the CPPT operation will be much higher than the PGDBK operation on a wireline. The CPPT technique will not be economical for wells with low potentials.
3. In addition the CPPT technique required 12 shots per foot perforation. The PGDBK used 4-6 shots per foot in the USA case.
4. SPE 68101 expressed safety concerned with downhole tools on tubing conveyed operation. 2 out of the 15 operations using CPPT were a safety problem. The wireline operation of PGDBK avoids these safety problems. It also avoids the need for additional downhole tools such gun centralizers, sleeve-retainer rings, bridge plugs, and heavy weight tubing.


PS: Read the "SPE 68101" paper at and click on "SPE 68101"...
members.lycos.co.uk/getc/

[greatday8]

Dear Frank,

The answer to your questions varies from State to State, and depends on whether the well is shut in or capped, and the well depth and changes in the wellbore over time, among a few things that can change.

Most wells in this country are shut in, although wells are now required to be capped.

If a well is shut in, and no problems have occurred with time, such as the need to clean the wellbore, which generally requires a day or two of swabbing, then you only need to put equipment back on the well.

This varies with the depth and requirements for the well, but tubing, rods and pumping equipment would normall cost about $45,000 for a 7-9,000 foot well. Swabbing is only another $1-2000, and then the cost of our treatment, and perhaps perforation costs.

If you buy used equipment or lease the equipment costs can be reduced substantially.

If you have a capped well, it depends on the State, and how much cement has been poured down the wellbore. Some places only cap down from the surface, others deeper. Capping costs vary from a few thousand to as much as $25,000 per well. Drilling through the capping cement is possible, but expensive, to recover a well.

These are general answers but specfic wells, can cost more or less than what is said here.

Hope this helps,

Regards,

Rick

[greatday8]

Dear Rick,

I have been using google.com to do searches of various words and phrases, trying to find relevant information about ALTAI, gas generators, wellbore damage, enhanced oil recovery, petroleum engineers and etc. There are many technologies available with varying degrees of success.

I did find this: www.tech-db.ru/istc/db/ta.nsf/wtan/0038

It have been written many years ago, because it is talking about testing the second generation generators.
Do you have an idea when it may have been written?

Regards,

Frank
========================================

Dear Frank,

Yes, this abstract was done, in probably 1994, since it refers to the time frames for China and Vietnam, that we are aware of. And we also know the company and these people. Some of them were actually part of the group that came over in 2000 for the transfer of technology. Extremely nice and knowledgable people. Now I have four years of calculus, given my scientific training, however when we got together, the physics and mathematics, I could understand in general, but the specifics were beyond me. It took our technical people, who have years and years of physics, mathematics in petroleum engineering schooling to absorb this technology at the usable level.

This group originally worked with Altai, as they share resourses for many developments.

I hope this helps,

Regards,

Rick

[greatday8]

Dear Frank,

You forgot two important issues:

a. That the technology increases the permeability in the basic rock 100 feet in diameter around the wellbore, thereby creating a huge collector for hydrocarbons.
b. That this system cleans the wellbore and also improves or rectifies the skin damage.

These are very important.

Regards,

Rick