This is a reproduction of a message I posted on AOL today...
The Wall Street Journal Interactive article is in many ways a hatchet job but I would not jump to the conclusion that Danialle Weaver is at fault. Let's look at how this article came about.
About two weeks ago someone at the WSJ (an editor, I believe) came across the large volume of passionate internet discussion concerning AIPN. My understanding is that this person first heard of AIPN on the message boards of something called Great Stocks. She asked Danialle to do a story about internet message board discussions using AIPN as the example. More than a week ago,I had a very long, detailed and pleasant discussion with Danialle. At the end of the interview she complimented me on the quality of my posts and asked me for permission to quote from them. I gave her permission and, during the next couple of days, she and I corresponded frequently by e-mail. I provided her with John Czaia's name and phone number, she complained to me that none of the "internet oil experts" would return her e-mail requests for an interview, we talked about general things not having to do with AIPN.
Then, on Thursday morning she sent me a note explaining that she had sent her article to the WSJ but that it had been rejected by one of the editors who claimed it needed more work. She said that she had been given marching orders to work on the article exclusively all day Thursday.All the time she spoke as if this were her article.
The article that was filed this morning did not carry Danialle's byline. Rather it was submitted by a Terri Cullen with a note at the end giving credit to Danialle Weaver for "additional reporting". Using my experience in public affairs and journalism as a guide, I will bet money that Danialle wrote an article that pretty much followed the lines of the original assignment, submitted what she told me was a 1000 word piece on Wednesday only to have it rejected by the editor(s). She then tried to work on it all day Thursday and submitted a revised article Thursday evening. That too was rejected for publication on Friday. At that point this Terri Cullen (the editor?) took over the article in effect firing Danialle who apparently did not have the right perspective on the story. I am pretty sure of this because when I got back from NYC this morning I found a message from John Czaia on my machine which hehad left on Friday morning at about 9:30 AM. The message was that he urgently needed to talk to me before being interviewed by a Terri Cullen.
So, I would not be quick to blame Danialle. Had her article been accepted for publication, I am confidant that it would have been better written, more balanced, and less of a hatchet job. I am positive that Danialle would have quoted me and others who have had postive things to say about AIPN as well as quoting those who were critical of the situation. This Terri Cullen is either a very bad journalist or had some agenda that called for trashing the company. The reference to Bossey's mention of Bre-X is taken completely out of context. Without specifically saying so, Bossey dismisses the comparaison with "this (the comparaison to Bre-X) presents a tremendous opportunity for investors in AIPN". Cullen's failure to reference Bossey's comments in the context of his speculative buy recommendation with a $10 price target is highly misleading and, as such, inexcusable. As for her statement that "American CFO Mr. Fitzpatrick readily admits the tract may not hold recoverable amounts of oil", notice that it is not in quotes. Especially after attending the meeting in NYC, I find it very hard to believe that AIPN's CFO believes that there may not be recoverable oil in the ract. This would seem to contradict virtually everything he and others said at the meeting. I will check this out on Monday.
I wouldn't be alarmed that Huddleston would want to stay in the background on this. For one, they do not want their name used to hype the stock and, second, they did not want to be deluged by phone calls.The fact that they did not deny involvement in this project means they were and it also means that they stand by the results announced by AIPN.
Generally speaking, AIPN has been trading very well. As I have said before somebody is accumulating this stock big-time and is doing so in a very orderly manner. Now that brings me to my final point. I find it more than a little coincidental that the head of British Petroleum goes on Moneyline extolling his company's excitement over oil prospects in Kazakhstan the day after someone posts information about an alleged article in something called OIL REFINERY that claims that an English oil conglomerate is looking to purchase a large stake in AIPN.
Can the person wh posted that message (Don2cfepic) please get back to us with details especially as to where we can get this magazine. To my knowledge, BP does not yet have a presence in Kazakhstan so we may have our first clue as to AIPN's most likely partner. This could be terriffic news if we can verify the article. Also, the idea that a large oil company might be accumulating a stake in AIPN jives with the way the stock has been trading during the last week. The PR firm told me last week that they saw evidence of a big buyer of the stock but would not or could not speculate as to whom it might be.
Any thoughts?
Cheers...Faris |
