'YOU HAVE TO SHOVEL A LOT OF HORSE MANURE TO FIND ONE STRAWBERRY".
Oil is not my business, but words are. According to Razor, Mr. Huddleston says his "fine, reputable" organization never said the oil (1.1 Bil.bbls) is actually there; and did not say those bbls were "proven" or "probable". That is true. Those terms are technical and are not used when there has been no drilling, as here. But Huddleston did advise AIPN management they are "probable", also a technical term, perfectly appropriate here, and based on seismic and other engineering data. Huddlleston also said to Razor that whether the oil is actually there or will be found when and if drilling happens, i.e. "the play" is "highly speculative". Certainly. "Probable" reserves are always such, and that is why they are by the industry translated into very low, reduced dollar figures. Huddleston says that, if the 1.1 Bil. bbls are actually known to be present, i.e. "proven", he would have trouble understanding why
the Kazak gov't doesn't simply keep and develop the field itself. Of course! But, obviously that gov't is short of money, like all such gov'ts, and cannot (and,if sane, would not) engage in the speculative endeavor of developing "potential" oil reserves. That is why such gov'ts, even US Fed and State gov'ts, sell concessions and leases to entrepreneurs, sharing generously in the loot, if it is found, without risking the public treasury. NO HYPE SO FAR. Only twisted, tortured interpretation of honest language by Razor.
So, what is Huddleston saying? He is saying what we ignorant idiots, not possessed of a Harvard degree, thought he said all along: "We are an engineering firm, hired to make a technical assessment, which we did. We are of the opinion that the (technically) potential reserves in the limited area we addressed amount to 1.1 Bil bbls. that is all we say. Whether such oil is in fact present is highly speculative, and we should not be understood as saying anything more. We do not classify those reserves as (technically) probable, much less
proven. If proven, the owner would keep them all. And what owner would not? We say nothing about the wisdom, or lack of it, of an entrepreneur who goes forward with exploration."
If Razor or Betty care to run the above by Mr. Huddleston I'll bet that he'll say it is a fair summary of what he said to both of them, and that his real intent has been grossly distorted in the translation presented by Razor. If not, all of us suckers should unite in a class action against him.
Finally, I assert that, while this is indeed a speculative play, the POTENTIAL returns are so great as to make it far from idiotic for mature gamblers. It is wrong to characterize every optomistic utterance as "hype", and every discussion of possibilities as fraud. I think these naysayers, who would not touch this stock and only want to save us all from sin and our own ignorance, have some agenda that has nothing to do with altruism. |
