Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : KOB.TO - East Lost Hills & GSJB joint venture -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (3783)	7/31/1999 4:15:00 PM
From: UPTICK	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15703

Salt'nPeppa, I am on it right away! THank you!

To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (3783)	8/2/1999 4:15:00 AM
From: Kerm Yerman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15703

Salt'n'Pepper - Grey Hairs - JohnLag - all / Share Impact Single Subject - Bellevue #1 Relief Well Base Statistic It is my belief that the single most important number (at this time) to focus upon is what 1 TCF of reserves contributes to the net asset value of each company resulting from this one specific well. I'm not sure if the US$0.68 "in ground" value is a correct number to use in determining the reserve value and further, "calculated" into a net asset per share value based upon conservative assumptions - proven, 50% probable, 15% discounting and Year 2000 $2.60CDN with forwarding calculations sounds reasonable to me. Can anyone inform me how we got to the US$0.68 (CDN$1.00) number. I believe the impact on share value will be related to the net asset per share value of each company involved, somewhere in the area of 1.5X NAV - which allows for a built-in premium in the ratio due to potential impact of additional drillings in the near future. That's a lot of speculation built into the share price -- but that's what we're dealing with here. Companies with reduced interest in further plays will see a lesser premium built into share prices.