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 : Oil Sands and Related Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michelangelo8 who wrote (15574)	3/24/2007 5:33:35 PM
From: Metacomet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25575

I don't think putting down BQI or PBG helps your case for CLL. Not sure that I was putting down BQI or PBG. I was making the point that their valuations are currently based on facts not in evidence, whereas CLL's value is being depressed irrationally, IMO, on facts that are in evidence. The market obviously favors that which can be imagined more than that which is known. Both BQI and PBG have market caps that validate this observation. Take the parameter of OOIP. CLL does not offer one for Great Divide. It is huge for PBG. They recently claimed 2.6 billion barrels of OOIP at the 40,000 acre Whitesands site.(84% PBG) We know that Whiteseands and Great Divide are McMurray Channel analogs. Assuming linearity in the channel, this suggests that CLL would have an OOIP estimate of approx 6 billion barrels on their 90,000 acres.(100% CLL) Even assuming THAI recovers 100% of that versus 50% SAGD for CLL, it is hard to justify the difference in market caps for the two.