American International Petroleum Corp Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : American International Petroleum Corp

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: faris bouhafa who wrote (586)	7/23/1997 11:55:00 PM
From: Taylor Mill	of 11888

Faris >>Sorry, Taylor, but my prior analysis was right using "estimated pre-tax present value of proved reserves" of $815.4 million as of 12/31/95 and as reported by Value Line. In 1996 Triton shares traded as high 60.3 and as low as 45.3/share. All I did was take the high for that year using an approximate number of 37 million shares outstanding. In other words, at one point in 1996 the market valued Triton at $2.22 billion or 2.72 times the NAV of $815 million. I made a simple point...using a point in time example (1996) and it holds up within that context.<< This now petty discussion must cease ---- it's clear that you don't want to understand what is valid valuation criteria in the industry vs. what is not. At no time in the last 5 years has the Net Asset Value of Triton dropped under $40 per share. Usage of out of date PV 10 data compared to share price is meaningless. What you fail to recognize was that since Dec 31, 1995 through the time that the stock was as high as $60 drilling by Triton confirmed both the massive size of the Cupiagua field in Colombia as well as delineated trillions of cubic ft of gas in the company's Thai_Malay concesion in SE Asia. Triton has not traded at any 2.72 multiple in any recent history. Regardless of what improper usage of data you use, you can't change that. Triton has drilled lots of wells to delineate its proven reserves --- AIPN has drilled none. And Triton reserves and market value are a function of that substantial drilling activity; AIPN still has 0 reserves and has drilled no wells. By the way ---- Triton is an incredible value at $42 ---- you ought to consider it for your portfolio. >> Also, you refer to JS Herold as "one prominent evaluator of oil/gas reserves". I'm curious, is JS Herold as respected, less respected, or more respected than Huddleston & Co.? << I have no familiarity with Huddleston. JS Herold is well known for appraisals of reserves value and other services; not so much original reserve estimates. JS Herold is a much more widely known name. >> If AIPN had changed the word "potential" to "probable" or "proven" I would agree that they would have been misleading the financial community but they did not. Where's the hype, Taylor?<< If AIPN had improperly used the terms probable or proven they would be outright "lying"; you're entitled to you own opinion ---- mine remains that AIPN's multiple press releases citing potential reserves had caused many unsuspecting people to believe that real reserves are there. Of the hundreds of publicly traded oil companies out there ---- few ever unleash this type of PR with so little data available. It's disgusting in my opinion and a disgrace to the oil industry. I expect this type of promotion with the Vancouver exchange companies --- not U.S. exchange companies. I wish you well Faris; you are entitled to make risky investments.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next