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: qdog who wrote (4208)	10/27/1997 6:25:00 PM
From: Cathi Wierzbicki	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11888

Qdog: I wonder if you would clarify a part of your post for me....I am confused as to what you are suggesting. In your second scenario you mention a tiered deal that gives AIPN 40 - 60 million up front and "then based on results additional money paid based on a formula that isn't tied to actual proven results. By that I mean the potential JV would pay .50/barrel on proven results instead of a higher rate of $4-6 after the fact. Then yes you could see the total deal approach 400 million or higher, depending on results (which in affect would help pay their share of the cost to produce). What is it that you mean? The JV pays $.50/barrel after the oil is "proven?" What "results" that "(aren't) tied to actual proven results" would the "additional money" be paid on? As you can tell, I'm totally confused. Could you explain it again, please. Thanks! Cathi

To: qdog who wrote (4208)	10/27/1997 9:59:00 PM
From: Geneat	Respond to of 11888

qdog: I lack expertise (am incompetent) to respond to the technical aspects of your post, for which I thank you. The fundamental difference in our views lies in this: I start from the premise that the oil is in fact there, i.e. the billions of barrels, and is extractible ecomonically. I base this on the obvoius identical belief of the Kazaks, Huddleston, Wooddy, Geo. Faris et al. Their bases of such belief cannot possibly be mere rumor. I will not go into the numerous facts which indicate that they have sound factual and scientific evidence, as well as information from experts to support such belief. There is IMO no more reason to think that they are ill-informed idiots than to think that Chevron is foolish to spend billions develop other fields in the Caspian area. We could argue the validity of this conviction of mine forever. Anything is possible, and I concede that if the oil is not there, my bankroll is history if I stay the course. If this elephant field is a reality, then I submit that in view of the other relevant things we know, which I will not list here, my optimism is justified, the stock is not very speculative, is more conservative than, for example, most tech stocks today, as well as the grossly overpriced DJIA stocks. At the same time, the prospective reasonably anticipated reward is enormous, and how much I invest simply depends on what I am comfortable with. You, on the other hand, believe, on the basis of technical and scientific considerations, experience in the industry and knowledge of its history (none of which am I competent to evaluate) that there is a very substantial doubt that the oil is there; and you further believe that plunging into this stock is foolish until drilling and positive proof of the oil's presence and its economical exploitation has been set in concrete, as it were. If you are right, I admit that I am greatly overinvested in a highly speculative stock, and need a guardian. If my belief is sound, I have made a sound investment whose quality is tremendously enhanced by the probable returns. Of course, present unknowns and possible future political and othr events may make the investment unsuccessful anyway. Those are risks inherent in buying any equity. If I have not correctly stated the difference in our views, you can tell me, assuming you care you do so. In any case, we need not snarl at one another, and can only await the future. I doubt that either will convince the other. If I make a lot of money, I'll never gloat, because that would be uncivilized, and anyway I could never prove that you were wrong and I was not just lucky. If it turns out that the oil is not there or available, I hope you will not gloat. I will be in too much pain. Geneat