Hi dad.
Well that was a painfully slow round of golf today ... took 3-1/2 hrs just for the 19th hole !!
<<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.>>
I'm sure that all threadsters must be completely convinced that I've grown totally senile and that I am in need of 24 hr supervision !! Well perhaps that's true, but there's another reason that my last couple of posts will not appear coherent to most of you .... I completely missed the HTP News Release dated September 13, 2000 !!! As such, I was not aware that "Hilton's summary of these reports is available on request".
When I first saw your post of the summary document on SI, along with your reference to something that showed up in your tackle box, any "connection" with that NR completely escaped me!! I just "assumed" that the summary had been "leaked" to you. VERY POOR ASSUMPTION by me !!!!
I only clued into the actual situation when I read OILFINDER's post over on the SH thread this evening. (Btw, thanks for recommending the thread. It looks like the fumigators did a pretty good job cleaning that place up !!)
So, dad, I now understand that the summary report was clearly NOT "leaked" !! But, may I also be so bold as to advise you to reconsider your assumption that it was "sent out as a press release". It wasn't, it is supplementary information you got because you apparently requested it (or because you are on some EJ mailing list) !! But, has the summary passed VSE scrutiny ?? Does the information in it meet VSE disclosure guidelines ????
<<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.>>
But dad, we DO agree on the lofty "principle" stated above (Bet you're surprised by my morals ?? <gg>). It's only in the "implimentation" of the principle that things start to get a bit sticky and where we seem to have some disagreements. For example, disclosure "timing" presents some major problems to corporations in real life, the amount of detail to be disclosed is a consideration, and officer and director liability is also an issue these days, etc., etc..
<<What competitive advantage? Exploration is NOT the only phase of a successful oil and gas discovery.>>
Dad, you lost me. I don't understand your point. Can you please rephrase\elaborate ?? I suspect that you are eluding to some perceived need for promotion following a discovery but I'm unsure.
<<If it did have value, would that not be considered a material change?>>
Possibly but not necessarily. Value and material change are clearly not synonymous.
<<If it is valuable then they should be selling it! They should also announce that they are selling it.>>
Maybe we can agree to disagree on this.
<.... 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.>>
I see. A lot of companies didn't even survive the last ~5 year period whilst these guys built a ~$B company !! And do recall the significant stretch of low commodity prices they tolerated during that period. Yep, just a bunch of bums. We probably should get us a broker in there to shake things up if we want to see $15/share in the next year. He could do it easily. Just a simple 1 for 6 consolidation after 6 months at the helm !! <gg>
You are of course right. Exploration people do not automatically make good management. But, neither do BComms, Lawyers, Doctors, Pharmacists, Plumbers, Electricians. So your point is ??
<<Yikes!!! I think perhaps we would all like to see how you are arriving at slightly less than 125 BCF!!>>
Well, simply put I accepted the Petrel Robertson determinations of net pay, porosity, gas saturation, reservoir pressure and standard pressure and simply added adjustments for "real world" natural gas and reservoir temperature !!!
Maybe you'd like to ask Busby what reservoir temperature was implicitly assumed in the hokey Petrel estimate ?? And, while you're at it, why not also ask him what Z factor Petrel estimated for initial reservoir conditions. Unfortunately, this "detail" is not documented in his little summary. Perhaps you can post his reply on the thread so everybody doesn't have to call him.
<<Now I'm getting nervous.>>
Don't be nervous, dad, but don't get suckered either !!
I asked you, <<Dad, does the investment community really deserve this kind of information ??>> and you responded, <<Yes...>>
Sorry, I very much disagree.
<<Was it material type news...>>
Was "what" material type news ?? The 363 Bcf/section per 171.5 ft of net pay ?? No, that's not material, that's just pure bullshit !! The rest of the summary report information does "appear" credible. But then you're only seeing excerpts there too, so ......
<<...if issued at the height of excitement over BKP#1, would it have brought much needed
"positive" attention to the partnership...>>
What date was "the height of excitement" ?? IMHO, the Petrel garbage should never have been released. And, the Adams Pearson and Fall Line analyses were both necessarily completed post production test (hence likely beyond what you would consider the pinnacle of joy at ELH).
<<...after the Cal Canal and Bellevue fiascos>>
If you consider Cal Canal and Bellevue "fiascos", then I conclude that either you do not understand "wildcat exploration", or I need a new dictionary !!!
<<Would it have been more prudent of Mr. Rose to release this information rather than his pathetic responce to the "watered out" rumor?>>
Well first, I disagree that his response on June 2 was "pathetic". IMHO, it was perfectly appropriate given the information "then" known and the then circulating rumour which HAD to be responded to promptly. JMHOBWDIK.
Secondly, the only portion of Busby's summary available on June 2 was the Petrel bullshit and it should never have been released. Releasing the Adams Pearson and\or Fall Line analyses on June 2 was not an option available to BKP. It didn't yet exist !!
Dad, tell me please, has this "summary information" changed YOUR impression of what's in BKP#1 ?? If so, how ??
<<The world STILL BELIEVES BKP#1 has watered out. Good communication? >>
Well, you can lead a horse to _____, but you can't make him drink !!
<<Are you, in any way, suggesting that things are NOT as you saw them a year ago with regards to the chances of success?>>
No, that's not at all what I was suggesting but you're right, things are not as I saw them a year ago. The ELH target remains huge, almost twice the size I expected a year ago (that's just ELH and excludes the WF !!). Exploitation has been slower than I had expected. There's still risk at ELH, but there's sure a lot less risk today than there was a year ago. The JV have proven reserves in ELH today and those reserves will be generating cash flow in just 3 months. A year ago they weren't nearly that close. The sales gas stream will be roughly 20% richer than I expected a year ago and the NGL content is much higher. And, of course, commodity prices have shot up dramatically in the last year. Finally, share prices are about 1/2 what they were back then !!! I'm sure this all makes perfect sense to brokers !!
Have a good one.
Later,
grayhairs
P.S. -- No passion (or other emotion), criticism, sarcasm, ill-will, etc. intended !!! I have very poor communication skills and I'm simply too tired to edit this damn thing any further. (You should have seen the first pass !!! <gg>) |
