Fwiw, closing out some of my apparent mistakes.
Taking losses:
ENDP: Company says it is not going to have anywhere near the earnings analysts are projecting.
(Amateur error made: relying that 25 analysts might get close to what the company would project)
PFCP (PF Chang's): Closed out my only short.
(Succumbed to typical risk for shorters: No matter how bad a company is doing, and regardless of the apparent relative and absolute high price of its stock, there can be somebody who can come along and offer a premium for the stock because they believe either the company is a strategic fit or that they or some team they hire can run the company better than the current struggling managers.)
finance.yahoo.com
MRR (McMoRan Exploration): Leon Cooperman (well-known/well-regarded pro investor) asks James R. Moffett – Co-Chairman, President and CEO, what seems to me to be a straight-forward three or four part question that gets to the issue of what's apparently ailing this company:
wallstcheatsheet.com
"Lee Cooperman – Omega Advisors: There’s so much data that you provide which is helpful, but hard to interpret. So, I’d ask you kind of like the bottom line question. The original play was to spend $1 billion to create something between $50 billion to $100 billion in value. So, I would ask, we have to obviously modify that to some degree, because nobody foresaw a $2 an Mcf gas, but are we on that program? Are we on a trajectory? Have you seen what you’re supposed to see to give you the confidence that the program will be an enormous success, whether it’s $25 billion, $50 billion, or $100 billion? Secondly, related to that, so run-on sentences, the production costs associated with the gas that we’re producing. The third, the ability or the financial footings we have to see the project to the end, do we have the financial depth of a balance sheet to handle this kind of expenditure? And lastly, the merits of bringing in an industry partner to derisk the shareholders to some degree? So, make believe that’s one question."
Answer he gets seems like gobbledygook to me:
"James R. Moffett – Co-Chairman, President and CEO: First of all, I think in slide, which is number 5, Rich went over, have we done what we set out to do? When you look at the fact that in the deepwater all the base structure that we drilled had – most were hydrocarbon. We drilled Davy Jones, Blackbeard West, Blackbeard East, and Lafitte and every one of those structures are what we consider to be primary structures. As you can see, we had hydrocarbons on every prospect and what we had hoped to do is to prove out new trends because of the fact that for instance the Frio sand or Oligocene sand is not developed in the deepwater. And we have been seeing more than almost over 100 miles in the north. So, we found the Wilcox at 26,000 feet in the Davy Jones. Frankly, we then redefined the whole shelf, and that was joined from deepwater to Blackbeard West to Davy Jones almost onshore. We have been able to take that data and average out the onshore possibilities, which was not at all in the pressure when we first started this. So, if you look at the multiple horizons where we have seeing hydrocarbons (indiscernible) that we’re seeing on the primary structures other than not having flow test, we probably couldn’t have drawn more project outlook to have all of our prospects. The test formations at the depth that we had predicted potentially looking at 34,000 feet, there has been sort of the barrier as you go deeper. We proved that the shale had objectives above 34,000 feet and much as five or six sand packages. So, that’s the first part of your question. As you say, what do you do with this going forward? We have still got $407 million in the bank. It’s going to be important to get this drill tests at Davy Jones as we discuss that (indiscernible). It’s going to be important for us to continue to pursue the prospects, especially the ones now that we have onshore because of the costs. I might point out that Blackbeard West-2, which is currently drilling, just (spud) at 20,000 feet. We are drilling now and we have got $45 million in that well. So, it shows us how we have reduced the size of the (indiscernible) and how we have been able to reach that point where we think we can get these well costs down by as much as half with the information that we have learned so far. So, all of that added up emphasize that the reason why Davy Jones and Lafitte and Blackbeard East and future prospects like Captain Blood and some of these onshore things that we are working on and all these prospects are mountains, just like the ones we drilled and that we have good data to be able to project reservoir over those big structures. It’s just a matter of getting in the bank. We run as a drill achiever, we had value achievement log and that was the first equipment that get test were as kind of bottom hole pressures that (indiscernible) we had to build that from scratch. So we proved with amount of test we got in the Davy Jones all of that equipment functions which probably would. So as far as where we go from here. The prospects are, were across past next anybody (indiscernible) these structures like Davy Jones or Blackbeard East are the structures we had really anybody who sees these structures is overwhelmed with them. Because they are so large compared to the structures we have been drilling above the (shelf) for all these years. So all of our structures so far most of them have (recovering) major plays, I think bigger than they have. They are kind of in, relative to us the value acreage on what we drill and what we have drilled would fit nicely into any major world class drive. So it kind of gives us a lot of different ways to raise more finance into this where we needed."
I've got no patience to put up with that now, and so I closed out my losing position. |
