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 : ATPG Shareholders -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thatsnotluck who wrote (237)	8/31/2012 8:38:19 AM
From: mrpanick	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3620

There was a recent Atpg seeking alpha article noting that the PV-10 didn't include infrastructure value used in extracting the reserves and estimating a substantial value for ATPG's infrastructure. That was my source on the issue as I'm not an expert in this area. Trying to deduct income tax expense from the asset value doesn't make sense to me. The GAAP income woudl depend on factors such as how much debt a potential buyer used to purchase the asset. I'm not saying that ATPG would necessarily get PV-10 value if they sold. They might get more or less. It's my understanding that the reserves tend to rise above this value as more actual drilling and exploration is done. It's a conservative number. Since it doesn't include infrastructure and undeveloped assets like Israel, IMO there is certainly a case that shareholders have some value and should at least be represented at the table with an EC. I view the low trading price of the ATPG bonds as reflecting cash flow of underdeveloped assets rather than true asset value if the assets were put on the market. Bondholders are also correctly concerned about recent cases like Great Atlantic and Borders where unsecured bondholders have gotten wiped out as the value of assets seemed to plunge once bankruptcy was filed.