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 : American International Petroleum Corp -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: faris bouhafa who wrote (4083)	10/25/1997 4:30:00 PM
From: Laserbones	Respond to of 11888

Faris: you read into my comment something other than what was intended. My comment was directed at the fact I took a long position based on my take of the info at the time and taxi did not. I was replying directly to a post by taxi. This is where I have real probelms with the "Go AIPN" crowd. It is an absolute requirement that any investor always balance his/her exuberance for a stock with some skepticism. Arguments that are made on this thread that point out all is not always rosey are met with biased replies. And you are, however, completely inaccurate in your statement: >>"...the skeptics usually just critique the positive comments without coming up with a single fact related to AIPN/Kazakhstan..." There have been many excellent issues raised. And a very good one is why is everyone concerned about whether a major is going to save any money striking a deal, now? There is no good fundamental reason that I have seen on this thread that answers this question. Oh, sure there's been alot of: "they'll save money," or "if they don't sign someone else will," and even "oil cos strike these kind of deals all the time." But how often do oil cos grab these concessions for pennys versus actually paying what they may "potentially" be worth? This is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning here. Yes, there are times when a proven reserve yields even more recoverable. But statistically I wouldn't put much wait on that. From what I've been able to distill from my own research is that far more often the potential-proven-recoverable graph is downward--steeply. I firmly stand by the opinion that until the seismic data collection/analyis has been completed and those results have been verified by independent tests/observation there will not be any JV with a large oil company. The argument that everyone can be patient except these outside oil cos is easily sliced by Occam's Razor. Greg

To: faris bouhafa who wrote (4083)	10/25/1997 9:20:00 PM
From: qdog	Respond to of 11888

There isn't anybody worth his/her salt in the industry that won't tell you the positive, Faris. It's their nature. It is also a known fact in the industry that it is verboten to leak information, until it is required. That's why all the rumour doesn't wash with me Faris. The proof is actual drilling and discovery there by. Skeptic, with AIPN past history in other "hot" spots?? That's enough to make me skeptic until they actually pull off a deal, then proceed and make a significant discovery. You choose to gamble early, but money will be made later on this stock, if they can pull it off. I got some early money riding on it, but I've seen this industry in it's boom and bust. I've also seen small companies make it and lose it. It is a high risk industry and you should be treating it as such. Foolishly looking at majors performance and considering AIPN future isn't smart. Right now, majors profits are from downstream ops and not from production. Due diligence, Faris? Go back and research Colombia. They were, at one time, one of the largest lease holders in Colombia. They failed to get partners and fail to drill deep wells in a country that significant wells are found at deeper depths. Those are hard facts. Facts that are known and undeniable.