Hi dad.
<<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.>>
JMHO, but the 06/02 NR is very succinct. Given the facts therein and those reported just 4 days earlier a disturbing material change is evident. But, I understand your confusion and desire for more details.
<<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..............Could even make it easier to find traditional financing (without the dreaded dilution of share value). Food for thought? Or just naive?>>
I fully agree that "once they CAN answer the questions" they should "tell their story" !!! Sure, let them shout it from roof tops, blow their horns, slap their own backs, etc. But, you imply that they have all answers NOW. Well, unfortunately they don't !!! They've issued NR's giving some definitive material info. They've also provided their more important interpretive conclusions (i.e. BKP#1 will be highly commercial, a substantial gas in place, expected gas and condensate production rates, the target onstream date, etc.). Dad, they've probably told us all they reasonably can. Some questions obviously remain unanswered and will linger for some time yet. So, as of today, which story should they publish all around the world ?? Sounds like a pretty good recipe for "egg on the face" !!! They've already got traces of yoke on their chin !!!
Sometimes a conservative approach IS the correct approach, dad. I won't just assume that these guys are incompetent with media relations. Perhaps they are doing their job very well but we don't understand what they are doing because we lack information\facts necessary to judge their performance.
More food for thought .... If the answer to a difficult question is so blatantly obvious to us, we may not grasp the question !!
JMHOBWDIK.
<<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.>>
And, what exactly is your angle for getting this on the Jerry Springer Show?? <gg>
Dad, the coins in my pocket have two sides. A massive media blitz could also contribute to staggering "oppportunity losses" for long term investors. Think about it !!!
<<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?>>
Yeah, sure. And what about that great big dream down the road ?? Just what did the $$$ promotion do for the shares of POE, LVD, and the other participants ??
And, remember dad, creating "interest in the race" can lead not only to more spectators in the stands but to more participants, higher entry fees, and reduced winnings !! Is that what you seek ?? Would that make you feel better ??
Would the Missouri folk be influenced ??
<<"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.>>
Dad, you obviously did not understand the point I was trying to make. "IF" had to do with "timeliness" of disclosure and the necessity to report immediately. The "material changes" reported were the substantially lower gas rate at a reduced flowing tubinghead pressure (compared to what had been reported only by NR just 4 days earlier!!) and the production of "formation water" !!!
<<There is NO LIABILITY and NO OBLIGATION to respond to RUMOR!!>>
Of course. But, THEY DID NOT REPORT A RUMOUR !!!! RUMOURS ARE NOT MATERIAL CHANGES !!! THEY REPORTED A MATERIAL CHANGE !!! And, TIMELY REPORTING OF A MATERIAL CHANGE WAS NOT A BLUNDER on their part, IT WAS AN OBLIGATION !!!
<<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.>>
IMHO, you're dead wrong, dad. They responded because BKP#1 started cutting formation water, gas rates declined dramatically and flowing tubing pressure dropped. See above.
<<Ill timed? Imo, very much so. A panic release? Imo, very much so.>>
One does not usually get to choose timing for a material change. "Events" dictate the timing. There was obvious investor\speculator\lemming "panic" as they responded to either the rumour or the reported material change.... who knows which ?? But, the release itself was anything but a "panic" release. Just read it again. Where in that release do you sense "panic" ???.
<<Can't have it both ways. See above.>>
You lost me, dad. Can't have "what" both ways ?? Please re-state your point.
<<The entire partnership was harmed, IMO.>>
I agree that there was a substantial loss of JV market cap on and after 06/02. But proving such loss to be damageand liabilous action and quantifying damage are onerous tasks.
But, is there really any point in our going down this path, dad ?? Besides, my lawyer is bigger than your lawyer. So sue !!! <gg>
Later,
grayhairs |
