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 : coastal caribbean (cco@) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (1218)	12/29/1999 8:30:00 PM
From: Edwin S. Fujinaka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4686

Henry,...It is hard for any of us to know what might be going on behind the scenes, but my sense is that the Company has the upper hand at this point with the "just compensation" comment from the Court. At some point, the State should be petitioning the Company to try to settle for as low a price as they can to fufill the just compensation requirement. The Company should be pumping up the value for just compensation purposes and for negotiating purposes. I am just getting the message that they don't want the figure to get too high for some reason that I cannot understand. Perhaps I am just too dumb to get it, but I am open to any reasonable explanation. I certainly don't think it is appropriate for the Company to negotiate any sort of deal before they have a professional appraisal of the condemnation value of the property that is being taken under the rules of condemnation. This condemnation valuation is probably a lot higher than the market price for leases that are under attack by the full power of the State. Of course the market price for the leases is depressed because the State has been using every immoral and illegal method they can muster to devalue the leases.

To: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (1218)	12/30/1999 9:52:00 AM
From: Tom Frederick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4686

Henry, I understand behind the scenes activity and the need for confidentiality in those negotiations. But that type of approach could cover either high level,critical negotiations OR a relatively passive approach of wait and see. We just don't know. The fact is that the court made a clear ruling that CCO must be compensated. And to date, there is no offer and no clarification of any timetable for when the state plans on either allowing them to drill or compensating CCO. This may all be the norm for litigation with the State in which case I will recant all my statements. But the last ruling clearly did not affect the opinion of investors regarding any near term resolution to the CCO leases. I will certainly defer judgement to those who have followed this story in greater detail and for a longer period of time than I. I also hope you are right Henry and, as we speak, numbers are being written on legal pads and passed back and forth across a table in a top floor conference room somewhere in sunny Florida right now. Wouldn't that be a nice way to start 2000 ;) Tom F.

To: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (1218)	12/30/1999 12:11:00 PM
From: Edwin S. Fujinaka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4686

Hopefully after tax loss selling is over we will be positioned to have at least a modest upswing in the price for January. I'd like to make an additional comment on my concerns for the state of possible negotiations or lack thereof. We will probably not know about any deal until it is a done deal. I for one will be very unhappy if any deal results in less than $5/share for the common shareholders. I believe that the insiders within the Company were actually angry with me for publicly saying that the value of the Company might be $100 billion because they had a much lower figure in mind, say well under $1 billion. I believe that some of the principals in the Company are in line to receive 1.2% or more of any such settlement. I don't have access to the exact deals involved, and I am not begrudging anyone a fair piece of this long running litigation settlement when and if any accrue. I just don't want them to give away too much to get their millions. I believe that their fiduciary duty requires them to behave in a reasonable and prudent fashion for the best interest of the shareholders. I don't want them to pull a dollar figure out of the air. We need a real appraisal for the market value of the property taken under the effective condemnation. The market value of the oil that we do not pump out of the ground is what I am talking about. This is not the same as the market value of the leases. I hope the lawyers and negotiators (if any) for the Company understand the difference. The market value of the leases has been artificially depressed by the illegal and immoral and bad faith actions of the State of Florida. I am not a lawyer, but I have been through a small condemnation case on a personal basis. I have been through a jury trial as a plaintiff in a multi million dollar case. I have dealt with many lawyers and "negotiators" over the years and I can say that it is easy for the interests of the lawyers to diverge from the interests of the clients (us shareholders). At this point, I don't know what a fair "just compensation" value is and I doubt that anyone else does either. My $100 billion is on the table and I would like to see anyone else's calculation before any agreement is reached. I know we won't see any figures in advance under normal negotiating circumstances, but this case is beginning to take on the form of a public policy issue and perhaps the populace should be informed along the way. BTW, for the record, I never actually believed that we would or should get $100 billion. I'd settle for less <G>.