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 (555)	7/22/1997 11:15:00 PM
From: Taylor Mill	of 11888

Faris >>If you go back to a previous post you will find out that I did not pull the 2.72 multiple out of thin air. I was using the model of Triton Energy..<< Definitely NOT any "model" of Triton ---- Triton sells at a multiple less than 1.0 not 2.72. My suggestion is that you take a closer look at Triton and get the facts straight; if so, you should recognize that it is a tremendous value for your portfolio and that AIPN is not. The facts are: During mid 1996, one prominent evaluator of oil/gas reserves (JS Herold) placed the value of Triton's reserves at $1939 million dollars and its NAV at $48.90 per share which includes other assets less debt. The 1996 SEV PV10 value of Triton's reserves is $1604 million much different than the $815.4 you cite. Triton's close today is $42; nowhere near $60 which is greater than its 12 month high but less than it's 24 month high. In other words, Triton shares are actually selling at a "discount" to their reserves value and NAV; this is far different than selling at a substantial multiple such as 2.72. In other words the multiple is less than 1.0. If you managed my portfolio and recommended AIPN, you would no longer be my portfolio manager. If you recommended Triton, I would be very happy. Your prior comments were not selectively ignored. I did not know what to make of them since they were so factually inaccurate. Not sure whether this is due to your misinterpretation of data on Triton or if you can blame it on Value Line. This type of multiple is widely used in oil and gas valuation thus should be presented accurately ---- multiples of Net Asset Values which are primarily reserves values tend to stay close to 1.0 for fairly valued companies and tend to rise above 1.0 where there are clear indicators of reserves growth likelihood. It should be obvious that Triton did not have a multiple anywhere near 2.72 at the end of 1996 and does not now. Thus your prior analysis is wrong: >>To put this in some perspective, consider that, as of 1996, Triton Energy with a 9.6% interest in the Cusiana field had a a proved reserve value of $815.4 million (according to Value Line). With about 37 million shares outstanding and trading at let's say $60/share that would Give Triton a market cap of $2.22 billion or 2.72 times proved reserves value.<<

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next