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: STLMD who wrote (11988)	9/25/2000 2:28:34 AM
From: grayhairs	Respond to of 15703

Hi doc. I hope you've enjoyed the summer and that you are well rested and prepared for the upcoming excitement with #2-#5 !! <<Probably to a fault, Berkley's position has been to not share significant material news to shareholders.>> Mike Rose et al are growing BKP in accordance with a long term plan subscribed to by long term investors. From time to time, in the long term interest of the corporation, it might be necessary to delay release of material news. But, for the most part, it just takes a lot longer to actually quantify "material" news than most impatient investors realize. Although a gas kick\flare while drilling in the MacDonald shale might seem very "material" to a short term day trader of TMK it would not likely be at all material to someone like Clay Riddell, a long term ~54% shareholder of POU !! I guess what I am really saying is that perspective does influence one's judgement of materiality. <<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.>> Numerous prior posts have also opined to the effect that BKP mishandled disclosure wrt the infamous BKP#1 "water fiasco". Well, I respectfully disagree with those views. Some water production was anticipated at BKP#1. Regrettably, BKP were "forced" to make a hurried and premature release acknowledging that BKP#1 was making some water. That NR was a reaction to a broker that began circulating stories that BKP#1 was watering out. As water cut was far from stable at that time, BKP's first release stated about all that they could "then" responsibly state. But, just a few days later, when more test data had been gathered and rates had stabilized, BKP was able to provide more comprehensive test results. And, they did. I fail to see any error on BKP's part. I would have acted in the same way. What am I missing ??? <<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.>> Yes, very clearly, IMHO. But, does the why "justify" the action ??? <<...this information if given to anyone outside the JV MUST be shared with all.>> Again, I must disagree. You in essence say that once a provision of an agreement\law has been breeched then all subsequent similar breeches are "OK". I do not agree and maintain that two wrongs do not make a right. I shall further suggest that posting Busby's summary on SI does NOT mean sharing with all as there no doubt are countless shareholders of the JV that don't waste their time on SI !! <gg> If Busby's summary is not forthwith distributed via a conventional NR to all shareholders of the entire JV can we be satisfied with the disclosure simply because "we" have it ?? That is, is selective disclosure OK when it's "us" that are selected ?? <gg> Of course there is NO way that BKP et al would (even if they could) distribute Busby's summary to their shareholders !! Why would they "go on the hook for it" ?? Have a good one. Later, grayhairs