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: grayhairs who wrote (11987)	9/24/2000 6:50:07 PM
From: STLMD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15703

Great post Grayhairs....Thoughtful and concise... The availability of "just in time everything" resulting from the internet/information explosion over the past ten years has come with a double edged sword well summarized by your post. I believe the challenge to companies today is to separate the material(that necessary to satiate the voracious appetite of the shareholder, linked in to everyone electronically) from the proprietary(that information always held to be exclusive and necessary to maintaining a competitive edge in a difficult and challenging business environment. As companies mature and the pressure upon them to finance such ventures as ELH is reduced, there appears to be a shift from handing out the material to shareholders to being more proprietary. Probably to a fault, Berkley's position has been to not share significant material news to shareholders. That said, the water fiasco, remains an excellent example of the necessity to share material information before a smaller analyst or broker community obtains the information, flooding(gg) the market with misinformation. Busby's tactics perhaps represents the need of a man and organization to stimulate as much interest in ELH as possible to gain market investment, probably prosper from the numerous Private placements, and derive much needed capital for further ELH expenditure. I prefer the conservative balance between material and proprietary information, ala Berkley, ELK and PYR. Busby's techniques serve only to increase volatility, endanger shareholder value, and promote private interests. That said, I must agree with dad that this information if given to anyone outside the JV MUST be shared with all. Perhaps this is where the sticky tackle box comes in handy. Looking forward to more "material" news and not to anymore "proprietary" releases as we reach TD later this month or early next. BTW... to all the armchair experts and analysts at SH(of whom I consider myself to be a full fledged and ignorant member),it's TEMBLOR not TREMBLOR(one being the layer just beneath the McDonald shale and the other being a misspelling of an earthquake type of movement!!) If we're going to discuss this play for two or more years we have to demonstrate some knowledge. Hope no one takes that the wrong way. I just didn't want to be too subliminable!!!(ggg) Stephen

To: grayhairs who wrote (11987)	9/24/2000 7:22:27 PM
From: Tom Drolet	Respond to of 15703

grayhairs; Barrons this weekend. Interesting. Tom D. September 25, 2000 Commodities Corner Coming: $40-a-Barrel Oil? But prices should slide by next year By CHERYL STRAUSS EINHORN Demand is outpacing supply. That's why the price of crude has been hitting 10-year highs almost daily. That's also why there's a 25% chance that, even with sales from federal reserves, oil will reach $40 a barrel this year before falling into the high 20s in 2001. That's also why the U.S. can expect rolling mini-crises in the near future, even though the impact on the overall economy shouldn't be too great. Essentially, demand is keeping pace with GDP growth. But supplies haven't kept up. Three years ago, when Asia's economies collapsed, so did demand. But since supplies lag demand, it took a while for production to shrink in line with consumption. In the intervening period, the world became awash in oil. Storage tanks filled up, refineries were idled and prices plummeted. At around $10 a barrel, crude actually traded at prices below many companies' cost of production. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Key Commodities Index CRB Group Indexes 9/22 9/15 Yr. Ago CRB Futures 226.30 228.34 200.50 Industrials 223.44 224.96 191.30 Grain/Oils 159.72 157.04 166.40 Livestock 230.82 227.30 208.40 Energy 361.30 378.59 225.00 Precious Metals 267.94 268.72 233.30 Barron's ~ Bridge Telerate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Producers eventually reined in supplies, and when demand began rebounding, they didn't begin boosting output again. Instead, they waited to see if the recovery was sustainable and they also waited for their cash flows to improve. Now capital expenditures are up. Oil rigs in operation total 200, up from a low of 110, but way below the average of 330 for most of the 1990s. Part of the problem is that not many rigs are available; many are already busy looking for natural gas. In fact, the natural-gas rig count stands at 818, a record high that clearly will keep needed equipment from the oil fields, for a while. It will take time -- perhaps a year -- before increased drilling brings new stocks to the market. By then, the growth in worldwide demand should have slowed, largely in reaction to high energy prices. Between now and then, OPEC has promised to add 800,000 barrels to its current daily output of 29 million, and by yearend, analysts project, the group will further boost output by the same amount. Still, that won't be enough. Seasonally, daily demand picks up by three million barrels as winter begins in the northern hemisphere. Furthermore, consumers have begun to hoard supplies. Domestic demand for heating oil is up 10%, versus last year's level, and well above the average of 2.5% for the past two years. But this makes little sense because people aren't heating their homes now; instead, they're simply stocking up because of increasingly irresponsible statements by politicians about how high prices may be this winter. Yet the current energy crisis isn't just about total supplies, it's also about the supply chain itself. Little new storage has been built in the past 30 years. Thus the difference between a full global tank and an empty one has shrunk as demand has grown. In the early 1990s, the world could store 20 days of oil supplies. Now, global capacity is only 10 days, and with the current supply shortage, the world has much less than that put away. In addition, tankers and refineries are running close to flat out. This is why the sale of 30 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Re- serve -- something the government agreed to do Friday and the rumor of which was a factor in November crude's settling at $32.68 -- is a bad idea. Refiners will now either have to stop taking foreign crude or store Uncle Sam's. Unfortunately, the market is in "back-wardation" -- meaning supplies for current delivery are dearer than those for future sale. Such a price environment makes it not only expensive, but uneconomic, to put oil into storage. Refiners would lose money. The world is stuck for now and that's why we've seen "rolling mini-crises," as Goldman Sach's director of commodity research, Steve Strongin, puts it. We saw heating oil prices spike last winter when we had a cold-snap in the Northeast and we saw petroleum briefly command $100 a barrel in the Midwest this summer when a pipe burst in Michigan. Still the adverse impact on gross domestic product has been minimal. Strongin estimates it has cut GDP by 0.25-0.75 of a percentage point, much of which we've already felt. "This should lead to a moderate slowdown in growth, but not a global recession," he says. Expect more volatility ahead. But by next year, as new supplies come to market and demand growth eases, prices should fall, to an average of around $27 per barrel. EOM

To: grayhairs who wrote (11987)	9/25/2000 3:00:44 AM
From: dad	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15703

Just returned from a wonderful day in Banff, Alberta. Very relaxing up in the Rocky Mountains. Before I "hit the sack" I want to reply to this post. I have already posted on SH, to try and quell any problems I may have inadvertently created. So here goes: <<<Of course that summary was leaked to you (and many others) with the intent of getting it on the internet. And of course Busby isn't going to lose his job !!! But, I'll bet he does get a phone call or two over "the leak" !!>> To be honest, it never occurred to me that it was a leak. I received it in my Email and assumed it was being sent out as a press release. <<Your two recent posts relate to several difficult issues, for example: -Provisions of JV agreements wrt release of information, -The definition of info that needs to be released to shareholders (i.e.what is "material"), -Selective disclosure \ level playing fields, etc., -"Leaking" of info, and -The reliability of "leaked" info.>> Call me naive but I believe that ANY INFORMATION that affects the value of our shares is a "material change" and should be made public. I know we don't agree on this and so we agree to disagree. <<I don't have the inclination to enter a lengthy debate on these issues but I will try to stimulate your thinking about them, perhaps from a slightly different viewpoint. I wish that I could offer clear, practical and universally satisfactory solutions to the issues, but unfortunately I can not.>> It is never my intention to harm anyone and in this case I'm comfortable that this was given with the understanding that it would reach the threads. <<I'm certain that you had\have NO intention of harming anyone, dad. Neither did\do I. But, let me also tell you (from my own experience on this very thread) you will likely hear about it if down the road someone "thinks" that YOU have harmed HIM by relating a fishing or drunken buddy story, or an opinion, here !!! <gg> >>> ATTENTION STUPID POSTERS: (excluding myself :o) !!! Fishing buddies, drunken buddies, and any other euphemism is used for entertainment value only!! The information is generally an OPINION or EXPLANATION unless it is very specific (eg: BKP#2 is back and drilling today. That is a fact!!) If ANYONE thinks grayhairs, S'n'P, or myself (the only time I will ever see me included in comparison to these two very knowledgeable gentlemen ggg) or ANY OTHER POSTER MAY HARM YOU, PLEASE GET THE HELL OFF SI and/or SH BEFORE THE RIGHT SIDE OF YOUR BRAIN EXPLODES!!!!!! There, I bet I've cleared that up! gg <<There can be little doubt that Busby made "the summary" available with an expectation that it would get wide distribution and publication on internet chat boards. But dad, if there's really nothing "wrong" with releasing all this wonderful info, then why on earth didn't he just have it posted on the HTP (and\or EJ) websites ?? It would then have had greater credibility (sorry, no low blow intended) and it would have also stood as a more permanent record (i.e. chat line messages are quickly dated).>> Man, do I feel used. gg <<Might Busby have been concerned that some responsibility and accountability would flow back to him if it were posted on one of those sites ?? Why might he have such concern ??>> I doubt it. Remember, like you, I sat in on his dog and pony show in Calgary. Remember his NASDAQ statement and his "opinion" of the value of HTP by June 1st. If the JV are upset then, as an investor, I say to them "what the hell took you so long in getting this info to the investment community"! <<Whoa now !!! What about the issues of competitive advantage and the value of the data ??>> What competitive advantage? Exploration is NOT the only phase of a successful oil and gas discovery. If the JV spent say $20MM to drill a deep well, complete it, and test it, should any\all data therefrom be immediately public ?? NO <<If this data is deemed to be critical to you, as an investor, might it not also have value to our competitors??>> If it did have value, would that not be considered a material change? <<If the data is valuable, then why should it be given away ?? Could we not get a bottomhole $$ contribution selling the data ??>> If it is valuable then they should be selling it! They should also announce that they are selling it. What if there are "scouts", in the fields and on the web watching their every move...which I feel there are? <<Could making this data public actually cost the JV somehow ?? Are we shooting ourselves in the foot by making it public ??? Should the corporation just give away its similar information on all other properties ??>> See above! <<Is management not hired to, capable of, and charged with running the business ??>> Yes, and in my opinion and the opinion of many brokerage houses the management isn't doing a very good job. Exploration people don't automatically make good management. Don't get me started! Note to Mr. Rose: Time to put your company ego away and make peace with the brokerage community. 18 months is long enough. It doesn't matter who is right. You are hurting your investors, in my humble opinion, and the share value reflects that. I WILL NOT discuss this further but anyone who has done DD on Berkley's history knows the story. <<Then should shareholders even be provided this detail ?? If yes, then pray tell, Why ?? Do most shareholders even know what the data means, or equally important, what it does not mean ?? Are shareholders aware of the limitations, assumptions, accuracy\inaccuracy and risks inherent with these types of estimates and interpretations ?? Might shareholders "hurt" themselves with this leaked information ?? Is there other data that should be provided the shareholders to facilitate their proper comprehension of the summary report (Eg. a complete suite of open hole logs, mud log, core data, RFT data, all daily drilling and completion reports, the flow test data, pressure data, all relevant seismic data, etc.)??>> Only if the experts that post continue to explain to the rest of us what it all means. That is why we read each and every post. To learn and to share. Am I being naive again? <<Finally, if we shareholders deserve all this information, then why do we only rate "summaries" of these valued reports ?? Why can't we get the complete reports .... the full meal deal so to speak ?? Was Busby just trying to save us some time by issuing a summary ?? Maybe he just didn't want to bore us with the many important limitations \qualifications \cautions\assumptions\risks normally documented in these types of reports !!>> Geez, take it easy. I'm on your side. Apparently you too have far to much HTP stock. Me too. <<Are the summarized results credible ?? For example, with respect to that hokey Petrel Robertson gas in place calculation (363 BCF), why did they make the implicit assumption that ELH gas will behave as an "ideal gas" (NOT !!!) ?? Or, why did they not make a simple correction for reservoir temperature (At 358 degrees F it's more than just a tad off standard temperature, 60 degrees F !!). You may think I'm nitpicking and over reacting here but these two "little oversights", if accounted for, would reduce that incompetent\misleading gas in place estimate from 363 BCF to slightly less than 125 BCF !!!>> Yikes!!! I think perhaps we would all like to see how you are arriving at slightly less than 125 BCF!! Now I'm getting nervous. <<Oh well, maybe there's no need to comment on that kind of stuff in a summary. Just keep it brief, it's just a summary !! BTW, did the summary have any "USER BEWARE !!!" embedded in it anywhere ????>> No. <<Dad, does the investment community really deserve this kind of information ?? Does the rest of the JV have a right to be upset ?? And, what exactly should the other JV partners do about "the leak" now ??>> Yes... Yes... and...... Offer to buy HTP out, at fair market value? gg <<Fun stuff, hey ?? Sort of reminds me of a short while back when a whole bunch of really "good chit" was being leaked on Cal Canal !! Ouch !! My wallet is still hurting !!>> Mine too!!! Was the information I posted good or bad news? <<Well, I think that overall, and subject to countless assumptions, it was great news.>> I certainly agree with you that regardless of ommissions it was, in fact great news, which begs the following questions. Was it material type news and if issued at the height of excitement over BKP#1, would it have brought much needed "positive" attention to the partnership...after the Cal Canal and Bellevue fiascos? Would it have been more prudent of Mr. Rose to release this information rather than his pathetic responce to the "watered out" rumor? Good management? The world STILL BELIEVES BKP#1 has watered out. Good communication? <<But I admit that, like Busby, I wear rose colored glasses on days that end in "y" !! <gg> >> Try fuchsia..it's VERY CALMING gg** <<Dad, if I might quote my own dear father, "Be careful out there, son. Things aren't always as they sometimes first appear.">> Very wise man, your father. Are you, in any way, suggesting that things are NOT as you saw them a year ago with regards to the chances of success? I am just asking. <<As I said earlier, I do not have "solutions" to the real issues. Perhaps you, or others, will.>> Solutions? Hell, I don't even know what the problems are! ggg <<Have a really great day, and please do sleep tight!!<<g>> Thanks, I think I will, now that I've thought things through. Good night everybody (not you stupid posters.....see above :o) ) <<P.S.-- Fishing should remain pretty good for the next few weeks. I just hope we throw back the right ones !!! <gg> >> After you fired all the above questions at me I think I'll give up fishing for information and focus on DUCK!!!!!!!................................hunting. ggg As always, GFTAELHI! GHTAELHDRC!