Hi Geneat! Since you are the same guy who posts on AOL as GENELAWYER, I thought it would be appropriate and less time-consuming for me to copy my AOL response to you on this thread...besides, the content might be amusing to some (sorry I left you out, Taylor!!).....
Subj: Re: July 28 meeting.
Date: 97-07-23 06:56:40 EDT
From: Bouhafa
It is threads like this that, unfortunately, give financial message boards on the internet a bad name!! On the one hand, you have very eloquent posts about AIPN's potential that collapse under the weight of largely unsubstantiated claims that the stock is worth $100+ (sorry, EHKMSMBA, but your most recent note did not really address my question concerning the mechanism by which you end up with a $100 stock while having to give away large percentage interests to oil producers and the Kazakstan government).
On the other hand, you have GENELAWYER refusing to believe that the July 28 meeting is real because it "makes no sense" to him. What makes no sense? These kinds of meetings are held all the time by publicly traded companies. What is unusual about this one is that shareholders are being welcomed as well as analysts, brokers, and fund managers. The company's PR firm (Wall Street Associates) has publicly posted the invitation with the address and phone number of the location and the date. This is the same PR firm whose phone number is on every AIPN press release (no mystery, there).
GENELAWYER, where did you get the idea that this is a "strange" meeting? What is "strange" about it? AIPN has been in the news recently and, as we all know, has been the focus of intense interest on Wall Street. Many questions have been raised about the credibility of the reserve claims, about how the drilling will be financed, about potential partners, etc. To his credit, CEO George Faris has decided to clarify all these questions at a meeting undertaken at his initiative with the financial community. Now, what is so strange about that? Answer...nothing. In fact, in my experience it's fairly routine.
Now, I suspect that your skepticism comes from reading the SI thread. From my point of view, a number of contributors over there are "foaming at the mouth" for reasons that remain unclear. Remember a guy named "Razor"? He was negative on AIPN from day one. He, Kenneth, and a guy calling himself Qdog, relentlessly dumped on AIPN (in my opinion, unfairly) refusing to see any value whatsoever in AIPN's estimates of potential reserves even though those estimates came from Huddleston & Co., a well respected and conservative oil surveyor. Razor went so far as to call Huddleston and then posted a total misrepresentation of his conversation with the firm. When another shareholder who had also spoken to Huddleston the same day suggested that Razor had misled us, guess what happened? Razor dissappeared and has not been heard from since. Interesting, no?
So, don't let yourself get confused by what you are reading on SI. As you know, I post there often although I am beginning to wonder why I bother. "Kenneth" seems hell-bent on discrediting AIPN's claims charging that they have engaged in "hype". Well, I've read all the press releases and, while there are some forward-looking statements common to all corporate press releases and acknowledged as such, I don't see any evidence of "hype". AIPN was told by a respected surveyor that, as per generally-accepted methods of seismic testing, there was the "potential" of 1.1 billion barrels of oil in 60% of the License Area. All AIPN did was publicly state that there were "potential" reserves of 1.1 billion barrels. They didn't turn around and say that they had "probable" or "proved" reserves....they just repeated the results of Huddleston's testing. No "hype" there.
Now, the assumption among the critics is that use of the word "potential" was misleading to the public since it might give the impression that there exist "proved" reserves (which, of course, one can only ascertain after drilling). Well, I guarantee you that the energy sector of the financial community understood very well what AIPN meant by "potential". Anybody with a dictionary could probably understand the term, as well. I don't think you can blame AIPN for simply reporting accurately the impressive results of their survey. cheers..Faris
Cheers...Faris
PS Has anyone had the foresight to get in touch with the janitors at the University Club to see if they have a work order for Monday afternoon? C'mon guys!!! Nobody ever said "due diligence" was easy!! |
