1) Most that visit this thread do understand that NAV's, in the case of this well, NECESSARILY mean "expected" NAV's. They have also previously been advised and understand that my statements reflect only my opinions/observations/calculations or, if indicated as such, a street rumor that I have heard.
Yep, I do need my knuckles rapped good again. I just can't seem to grasp the very basic and relatively simple concept that because there has not yet been a factual disclosure via a press release, there can not possibly yet be any NAV. How stupid of me!! Oh well, maybe if I keep reading your posts I will eventually grasp the logic of that rule.
By the way, please explain "...they are based on facts from which reasonable assumptions are made..."-- I'm puzzled again, RIK. If you have the facts, why do you have to make assumptions?? Or is this how a geologist "explains away" something that isn't consistent with what he was expecting/wanting? He just GUESSES it away!!!
And RIK, if you don't like my NAV's because I haven't presented any facts, then just ignore them. You won't hurt my feelings. Besides that would only be fair cause I sure as hell am ignoring yours (NAV=0) since I found your facts to be, shall I say, quite "lacking" too.
2) You say that you only have a problem with people who intentionally mislead other people. I do so much hate to disagree. But, I must for alas you have several additional problems!!
3) I believe that DAL's website portrays the seismic anomaly to be in excess of the "considerably less than 3 sections" that you purport to be a maximum areal extent. And, I believe that TKE portrayed the Leduc anomaly at about 3 or 4 sections. I recall having said the well would likely prove up 1 section of reserves and establish 3 sections of additional probable reserves (This is quite a contrast to your "zero" reserve GUESS!). I said anything in excesss of that would remain a potential reserve, IMHO. I do not recall ever having painted the picture that the entire 16.5 section block was expected to be underlain by deep reserves. But, I do also recognize that the deep play (NOTE: "PLAY" not "POOL", RIK) could extend well beyond the acreage controlled by the group. And, of course, we both know that there may well be more than one "POOL" under the 16.5 sections of controlled acreage.
WRT "...no secondary objective could match the vertical pay section of the Leduc." -- For some reason you seem to think that we need 300 feet to 500 feet of pay to have an economic success here RIK. I don't expect anything close to that. But, maybe (instead of just GUESSING the reserves to be zero) you should crank the reserve calculation for say 55-60 feet of pay and other reasonable parameters just to convince yourself that this thing can RING THE CASH REGISTER (JUST LIKE TURNER VALLEY WILL).
4) "FWIW the original seismic anomaly is pretty well confined to the original earning block." --> For sure, the original "seismic anomaly" (i.e. the mapped Leduc target) was fairly well confined to the original earning block. But, what about the secondary objectives? What are their bounds, RIK?? Are you wanting me to accept your inference that the original seismic anomaly "overlays" the discovery ? Have the geophysicists reconciled their interpretation to the 3-22 well data and arrived at that conclusion? Are we to believe that you are the only one that would know that? Come on RIK!!! Or, ARE YOU ON APACHE's PAYROLL, AND TRYING TO BUY OUR SHARES CHEAPLY ??
5) You'll have to quiz the Roberts Bay - Loon spokesmen about their deal. I'd like to pretend to know everything (like you RIK) but regrettably I do not. Some time back there was a rumor that indicated control of the Board was "an issue" in the transaction but you tell us if that in fact was the killer. If not, what was the killer?
6) With respect to my trading positions .......YOU JUST DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING I SAY!!!! -- Well, put your money where your mouth is then!! Make yourself some easy coin!!
RIK, I tire quickly with this mud slinging. I do not wish to carry on in this manner. So, respond and sling it back if you wish. Have the last word(s). I choose not to respond to any more of your posts and invite you to do likewise with my future posts. Of course, I know that that will be difficult for you as you are on a mission to save the world from all us cyber scammers. |
