Hi dad.
<<I wish you hadn't posted that.>>
I'm indeed sorry if I caused you a loss of sleep. Of course that summary was leaked to you (and many others) with the intent of getting it on the internet. And of course Busby isn't going to lose his job !!! But, I'll bet he does get a phone call or two over "the leak" !! <gg>
Your two recent posts relate to several difficult issues, for example:
-Provisions of JV agreements wrt release of information,
-The definition of info that needs to be released to shareholders (i.e.what is "material"),
-Selective disclosure \ level playing fields, etc.,
-"Leaking" of info, and
-The reliability of "leaked" info.
I don't have the inclination to enter a lengthy debate on these issues but I will try to stimulate your thinking about them, perhaps from a slightly different viewpoint. I wish that I could offer clear, practical and universally satisfactory solutions to the issues, but unfortunately I can not.
<<It is never my intention to harm anyone and in this case I'm comfortable that this was given with the understanding that it would reach the threads.>>
I'm certain that you had\have NO intention of harming anyone, dad. Neither did\do I. But, let me also tell you (from my own experience on this very thread) you will likely hear about it if down the road someone "thinks" that YOU have harmed HIM by relating a fishing or drunken buddy story, or an opinion, here !!! <gg>
There can be little doubt that Busby made "the summary" available with an expectation that it would get wide distribution and publication on internet chat boards. But dad, if there's really nothing "wrong" with releasing all this wonderful info, then why on earth didn't he just have it posted on the HTP (and\or EJ) websites ?? It would then have had greater credibility (sorry, no low blow intended) and it would have also stood as a more permanent record (i.e. chat line messages are quickly dated).
Might Busby have been concerned that some responsibility and accountability would flow back to him if it were posted on one of those sites ?? Why might he have such concern ??
<<If the JV are upset then, as an investor, I say to them "what the hell took you so long in getting this info to the investment community"!>>
Whoa now !!! What about the issues of competitive advantage and the value of the data ?? If the JV spent say $20MM to drill a deep well, complete it, and test it, should any\all data therefrom be immediately public ?? If this data is deemed to be critical to you, as an investor, might it not also have value to our competitors ?? If the data is valuable, then why should it be given away ?? Could we not get a bottomhole $$ contribution selling the data ?? Could making this data public actually cost the JV somehow ?? Are we shooting ourselves in the foot by making it public ??? Should the corporation just give away its similar information on all other properties ??
Is management not hired to, capable of, and charged with running the business ?? Then should shareholders even be provided this detail ?? If yes, then pray tell, Why ?? Do most shareholders even know what the data means, or equally important, what it does not mean ?? Are shareholders aware of the limitations, assumptions, accuracy\inaccuracy and risks inherent with these types of estimates and interpretations ?? Might shareholders "hurt" themselves with this leaked information ?? Is there other data that should be provided the shareholders to facilitate their proper comprehension of the summary report ( Eg. a complete suite of open hole logs, mud log, core data, RFT data, all daily drilling and completion reports, the flow test data, pressure data, all relevant seismic data, etc.)?? Can there ever be justification for "selective disclosure" through our beloved analysts ??
Finally, if we shareholders deserve all this information, then why do we only rate "summaries" of these valued reports ?? Why can't we get the complete reports .... the full meal deal so to speak ?? Was Busby just trying to save us some time by issuing a summary ?? Maybe he just didn't want to bore us with the many important limitations\qualifications\cautions\assumptions\risks normally documented in these types of reports !!
Are the summarized results credible ?? For example, with respect to that hokey Petrel Robertson gas in place calculation (363 BCF), why did they make the implicit assumption that ELH gas will behave as an "ideal gas" (NOT !!!) ?? Or, why did they not make a simple correction for reservoir temperature (At 358 degrees F it's more than just a tad off standard temperature, 60 degrees F !!). You may think I'm nitpicking and over reacting here but these two "little oversights", if accounted for, would reduce that incompetent\misleading gas in place estimate from 363 BCF to slightly less than 125 BCF !!! Oh well, maybe there's no need to comment on that kind of stuff in a summary. Just keep it brief, it's just a summary !! BTW, did the summary have any "USER BEWARE !!!" embedded in it anywhere ????
Dad, does the investment community really deserve this kind of information ?? Does the rest of the JV have a right to be upset ?? And, what exactly should the other JV partners do about "the leak" now ??
Fun stuff, hey ?? Sort of reminds me of a short while back when a whole bunch of really "good chit" was being leaked on Cal Canal !! Ouch !! My wallet is still hurting !!
<<Was the information I posted good or bad news?>>
Well, I think that overall, and subject to countless assumptions, it was great news. But I admit that, like Busby, I wear rose colored glasses on days that end in "y" !! <gg>
Dad, if I might quote my own dear father, "Be careful out there, son. Things aren't always as they sometimes first appear."
As I said earlier, I do not have "solutions" to the real issues. Perhaps you, or others, will.
Have a really great day, and please do sleep tight !! <<g>>
Later,
grayhairs
P.S.-- Fishing should remain pretty good for the next few weeks. I just hope we throw back the right ones !!! <gg> |
