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 : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Ox who wrote (70742)	8/10/2000 10:25:32 PM
From: isopatch	Respond to of 95453

No problemo Mike. You points are VERY far from ignorant. But to be perfectly honest, I can't answer your questions. The reason is I'm NOT a "value player" as per my post of just a few minutes ago to JimP. In fact, that's one of the reasons I went into a little detail in the post because my style is a little "unconventional" on this thread (as it is elsewhere<g>)and not all that easy to explain. It's a very stream of consciousness thing when it's working. When it's not working? The old Wall Street saw, "When in doubt...stay out" comes quickly to the fore for me and I can sit with a lot cash for extended periods till I feel the tape again. Jim is the guy to run your value questions by, not me. Isopatch

To: The Ox who wrote (70742)	8/11/2000 1:50:13 AM
From: Douglas V. Fant	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 95453

Michael, Just came back from the Rocky Mountain Investment Forum in Denver. Would you possibly believe $40/bbl oil and $7.00/ mcf spikes on NG this winter?

To: The Ox who wrote (70742)	8/11/2000 8:01:32 AM
From: Taylor Mill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

PRZ and SEC Value RE: "Please look at the $24/share reserve value assumption I made. This is based on the total value before the cost of extraction from the ground. Is it fair to say that at least half of the "value" will be lost in cost of revenues (SGA, production costs, etc.)? " NO, that is not a valid assumption. SEC valuation is a discounted valuation method based on assumptions regarding cash inflows and outflows based on current prices. The PV10 value is the SEC value. Therefore assumptions about operating costs are already there. The "gotcha" in SEC pricing is that you need to understand the prices used and whether they are meaningful over the long term. Many would say that an SEC value based on Q2 2000 prices are too high unless you really believe oil and gas will maintain equivalent highs over the extended long term. Most would not make that bet based on history. Also it is not clear here whether PRZ is indicating a pretax or after tax SEC value. Many companies sell at market prices approx 1x to 1.1x pre-tax PV10 or 1.5x after tax PV10. If it is a pre-tax value then PRZ would appear to be at a high but reasonably valid valuation.