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 : Tusk Energy (TKE) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael M. Cubrilo who wrote (424)	5/8/1998 11:48:00 PM
From: RIK	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1207

Hi Mike and grayhairs Can you imagine my DELIGHT .....couple of plumbers standing toe to toe - giving it their all!! In the blue corner - 'grayhairs the Pitbull'....in the red corner 'Michael the Speculator'......Gentlemen Round 3 .....Come out SWINGING!!!!!

To: Michael M. Cubrilo who wrote (424)	5/9/1998 12:55:00 PM
From: grayhairs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1207

Michael, Below are 2 quotations extracted from your Post #417 to this thread: 1) "I believe that these threads are referred to as "discussion groups" and are meant to exchange information, ideas and, hopefully, some facts." 2) "... but I feel that it is important to also be as informed as possible. I am trying to supply some facts and answer technical questions so that we can make informed decisions." In my Post #419, I posed four direct questions which you have avoided. Now, so that we all may better understand your logic and make informed decisions, please answer those questions, which for your convenience I repeat below: (A) "But by your own admission, you have not seen any technical data on the well. So Michael, how is it that you can even claim that the well has no proven undeveloped reserves?" (B) "And, please do explain for me the logic that supports your claim that just because a well hasn't actually demonstrated earnings, it must be considered speculative. As an analogy do you suggest that Hibernia was speculative until the day of "first sales"? (C) "And, in the event that the Strachan well might be successfully completed for commercial production, and tied in, and actually placed on sustained production later this summer, why must the well remain "Speculative" simply because the companies may chose to preserve a tight hole status and not issue a press release??" (D) "HOW WILL YOU FEEL if this well is completed for 25 - 50 MMCF/d later this summer and you find out that you influenced some elderly investor (like me!!) to sell off all of my stock at these levels??" And now, with respect to your response: RE: "On one of your first comments re: a cased well equating to an economic well or, for that matter, one which will be placed on production, I disagree." -- I don't doubt that you would disagree with such a comment. I do think that most people would. -- My problem is that nowhere in my post did I state that a cased well equates to an economic well or one that will be placed on production. I stated what I believe (and intended) to be quite a different thought which was "....this well has a realistic potential for commercial production. It would not be standing cased today if it didn't." You appear to be MIS-READING between my lines, or something!!!! RE: "Some companies do case wells which are not economic. On that point I stand firm as it is a fact." -- When you so emphatically state that uneconomic wells are being cased this could MISTAKENLY be interpreted by some as being a "common" and "widespread" and "deliberate" event in our industry. I RESENT THAT VERY IRRESPONSIBLE ACTION ON YOUR PART. It paints a false picture of our industry. -- Of course uneconomic wells are sometimes cased!!! I quickly admit to casing many uneconomic wells. Wells require casing if they are to be placed on production. So if I drill a well which I "reasonably believe" can be completed for commercial production, I run casing. But, if upon completion the well it is not commercial, should you believe that I was purposefully "deceitful" or can you give me the benefit of the doubt and accept that I, acting in good faith, was "wrong in my initial (and likely difficult) decision"? No doubt that in many such cases (where a well turns out to be uneconomic after completion), if I had chosen the other course of action and abandoned the well instead, you could today stand back and call me an old and incompetent idiot for not seeing the "bypassed pay" in the well. When dealing with marginal zones, one is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. -- It is very dangerous to "judge" the actions of others in hindsight or from a different vantage point. As one example, many years ago my boss very brilliantly recommended that our company PLUG AND ABANDON an exploration well (~10,000 ft) that had already been successfully completed, equipped, 4 point tested and placed on sustained production at ~15 MMCF/d (as I remember). Now, if I today steered you to just the public technical data on that well, you would no doubt judge our company as a collection of absolute and total idiots for having abandoned that well. Nonetheless, that "idiotic" plug and abandon decision made our company mucho millions!! And that was back in the early 70's when even $1 million was actually some serious coin! RE: "As for manipulation? I don't think so." -- How in the hell can you possibly infer a suggestion of manipulation from my post??? RE: "age is irrelevant here... knowledge is not." -- Finally, you utter something I completely agree with. And, thanks for the compliment!! :-) :-) Later, grayhairs