I'm interested in WHY the stocks have LOST 50% of their value, since the "GREAT NEWS" in May and June? Information highway not being used perhaps?
<<Well, there's several analyst downgrades over that period. You know, commodity prices are too high therefore currently high earnings will decline in the future, some bad financial ratios compared to peers that aren't growing as rapidly, they haven't done a financing through us recently, etc.. <gg> >>
My thoughts EXACTLY!!!! :o)
The market is making it clear, at the moment, that it is concerned.
<<And, greed and fear are never evident in share prices !! <gg> >>
OOPS! You forgot about MY shares! <<ggg>>
<<I'm from the "old school", dad.>>
My "school" is old too. I was two courses short of receiving my grade 6 diploma. But I was the most popular student that year. I was the only one with a car!! <<gg>>
<<I just don't see how a good CEO can run his company based upon what some "broker" (that doesn't know the difference between condensate and whip cream !!) thinks\wants !!! A CEO must run his company in accordance with a long term business plan approved by his BOD on behalf of his shareholders. If at any time the shareholders do not agree with "the plan", or with the corporate execution of the plan, they propose change and they get it or they leave !!>>
<< Simple !!! We've had some "leaving" with the ELH JV lately. But, does that mean that the JV business plan is wrong or that its execution is poor ?? If your answer is "Yes", then you need to consider walking too. If not, then maybe throw in some stink bids !!>>
BYE....................................................er, I mean buy...buy.....buy........I'm a longer term investor than 18 months. Besides, I can't leave right now. My investment has cost me to much "paper loss" <<gg>>
Somehow, I've left the impression that Mr. Rose is not my idea of the proper CEO. Let me correct that, right now. I've never had the pleasure of meeting him and I do RESPECT what he has done in the past. He, and his staff have built a pretty impressive company. My concern is whether they now recognize the importance of media relations. Like it or not it is a neccessary part of a large companies executive TEAM!
<<Clearly, I should have shut up on all this !!! I could have faked total agreement !!! <gg> NOT !!!!>>
I didn't "HEAR" a word you said. **ggg*** I do however, enjoy and respect your opinions, on this thread.
<<In the LONG TERM, it won't be important. But will Berkley Petroleum still be Berkley Petroleum?>>
<<Does it really matter ?? In the long term, BKP will be what BKP will be. So what if Busby <gg> buys them out !! Rose et al would get tossed aside but they'd just start up again. And, I'd sure want to be a part of that one !! <gg> [For clarity, I do NOT think that Mike Rose walks on water !! But, I am impressed with what he has done and continues to do with BKP. IMHOO, he's a winner. I do want a piece of his show. Now, hopefully he'll also learn to walk on water !! <gg>]>>
PLEASE change your hopes to he will learn to walk on condensate!! <<gg>> The rest I agree with totally (see above).
<<With all due respect dad, IMHO, you are clearly wrong on this matter, perhaps because you think (naively ??) that the test results were not "alarming" at an early stage of the test. But, do appreciate that while the early test results were NOT CONCLUSIVE (except of multi-phase flow at unstable rates and pressures) they were certainly troublesome !!!!>>
Naively. I saw FIRE and that's all! <<ggg>> I do however stand by my position that their release the day after "the watered out rumor" caused more confusion, by not being more detailed. JMHO.
<<After flowing on cleanup in preparation for the actual post completion flow test, BKP issued a 5/29 NR which outlined the preliminary flow data. When the production test was initiated BKP#1 began to produce significant water early in the test .... and the water cut increased rapidly. Of course, flowing tubing pressures were impacted sharply. Rumours soon circulated that the well was watering out. But, was it, or wasn't it ?? Was the water influx occuring throughout the entire ~300 ft completed interval, or was water entry via only the lowermost perforated interval ?? Might remedial work be worthwhile\necessary\possible ?? Might the water cut stabilize or would it continue to increase above expected levels choking off all gas flow ?? Was the gas reserve perhaps depleting ?? Nobody would be able to provide reliable answers to these questions after just a few hours of flow.>>
Agreed. But once they CAN answer the questions, a professional press release "detailing" the problems, solutions and progress should go out to the national media services, along with appropriate photos. This doesn't in any way need to detail "trade secrets". This is a story worth following! Especially in the US newspapers where gas shortages are the "news of the day" One story in the LA TIMES reaches 25,000,000 people. Surely some of them are investors who have NEVER heard of this project (SO CLOSE TO HOME) or these CANADIAN companies (sorry PYR). The publicity (for ALL PARTNERS) wouldn't hurt either. Could even make it easier to find traditional financing (without the dreaded dilution of share value). Food for thought? Or just naive?
<<Dad, that's comprehensive disclosure, "per the book" !!!>>
"Per the book covers their liability. I'm talking about NEWS!! Television, newspaper etc. This is a WORLD CLASS STORY. Discovering and producing natural gas IN AMERICA!!
The benefits, to all partners, is potentially staggering. This is NOT some little exploration in the backwoods of northern BC. It must be recognized, by the partners, as a MAJOR COMPANY MARKETING TOOL!! You want to attract investors? How about a story on the FRONT PAGE of the LA TIMES. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL? THE BAKERSFIELD..(OK, maybe not the same impact, but)? A story to the National Newswire Service would be picked up in a heartbeat (IMHO) because natural gas shortage is currently "THE FLAVOR OF THE MONTH".
This is a marketing dream. The opportunity should not be missed, IMO. Feel free to call "Mike" and pass my thoughts on. Slow and steady (old school) wins the race....agreed.
Letting spectators know there IS A RACE, creates INTEREST IN THE RACE!! Makes those of us,INVESTING in the "turtle", feel better *ggg** . Anything wrong with that?
<<To appreciate why BKP had to issue their 6/2 NR let's just assume that they had chosen not to issue it. What then IF the well had cut additional water, the gas reserve had been limited and depleted, and the well actually did water out during the test. That is, assume that the erroneous initial rumour had quickly proven up. Well, you'd still be very pissed but BKP might also have a liability to you (IF you could prove damage attributable to the non-disclosure).>>
"IF" doesn't cut it. "If" the well had cut additional water and watered out then THAT would be a "material change" and of course been necessary to report.
There is NO LIABILITY and NO OBLIGATION to respond to RUMOR!! As you are aware, the securities exchange would request clarification, had the rumor been a concern.
<<They HAD to issue that NR, dad. It was not a "blunder". This was an excellent example of what timely disclosure of material change is all about !! JMHOBWDIK.>>
The fact that the policy had been NOT to respond to rumor UNTIL THIS ONE RELEASE, and continues AFTER THIS ONE RELEASE appears to support my contention that this was a major blunder.
In this case there was panic, and possibly REAL DAMAGE done to existing shareholders of ELH companies. Shares dropped dramatically, margined accounts were adversely affected and the media "jumped on the story". I'll timed? Imo, very much so. A panic release? Imo, very much so.
<<First, beside the fact that the damage had been done, it occurs to me that it might be virtually impossible to PROVE that a brokerage had "perpetrated" a rumour versus "responded" to one. One action might deserve a retraction, the other not.>>
Can't have it both ways. See above.
<<Second, BKP communicated the facts and their test interpretation via four timely NR's.>>
Agreed
<<If some investors\shareholders choose to be guided by "The National Enquirer", in the face of this comprehensive disclosure, well so be it !!>>
Is that a shot at Stockhouse? **ggg**
<<Third, how do we know that BKP did not request retractions ??>>
I asked. They didn't.
<<Was BKP harmed ??>>
The entire partnership was harmed, IMO. Whether it is short term harm is not the issue. They were harmed and so were all the investors. Especially those who chose to margin their accounts. Thankfully, I didn't.
How do we quantify and prove the damage ??
Lawyers. Remember my post yesterday about having the correct professional handle their area of expertise? And no, I don't know if they discussed this with their corporate lawyers.
Do we want "whiners" or "winners" running our show ??
We want "winners" We want "winners" who stand up for their shareholders!! We want "winners" who meet their announced schedules! Ya! Go team GO!!!!!
I'm done whining now. :o)
Where are the prepared press releases that should be going to the national media services in Canada and the US? NONE! Shouldn't be that way, but management does not know the difference between reporting "material changes" for the purpose of securities regulations AND press releases to keep the world interested in their company (and their partners).
<<No argument.>>
Grayhairs, it's been fun. Finally, some life on this thread.
As always,
Good fortune to ALL ELH INVESTORS!
Good health to ALL ELH DRILLING RIG CREWS!
PS- No proofing. At the speed I type......no time :o) |
