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 (490)	5/23/1998 9:26:00 PM
From: kingfisher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1207

Michael, I am curious about something.On April 15,1997 you started the thread on Wolverine when the stock was trading at $1.30.In August Wolverine popped up to $1.70 and now it is kicking around .90 cents.With your knowledge of the gas industry I am surprised that you have not contributed one comment on what has happened to Wolverine despite what I believed to be a positive announcement recently.Based on a very eloquent statement recently on your investment philosophy on the Tusk thread I would have assumed that you would have bailed out of Wolverine at the $1.55 to $1.70 level in August of 97.You said you were a shareholder of Wolverine.What gives? Why did you not sell?Or did you sell most of your position and hold a token amount.I just find that this conflicts with what you have been saying on your investment philosophy . Richard P.S Would you buy 50,000 shares of Wolverine at these levels? Or will you wait for more news on Tusk and buy it at $3 in a couple of months

To: Michael M. Cubrilo who wrote (490)	5/24/1998 3:13:00 AM
From: grayhairs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1207

Michael, My God!! You spew incessantly!!! Perhaps you should pick up a story book and tell some stories to your young children rather than plugging this thread with your jibberish. Re: "Depending on the game that the TKE participants are playing..." My goodness, is that what you think this is Michael, just a game?? The TKE participants are just playing a game with $4.5 MM of shareholder funds for which they have a fiduciary responsibility?? Is that what you do at Crestar?? play games with shareholders and their funds?? Thank God these juniors have guys like Holton, Squarek and Robertson at the helm. They know that there really is only one way to do things. Re: "...or that they have a technical release which tells investors enough to be able to ascertain that they actually have something of significance." and Re: "The only way investors can understand the release, is to understand its meaning from a technical perspective." Well, this is where I have no recourse but to land a light jab, Michael. You seem to think that we investors are all a bunch of idiots, all incapable of reading and comprehending a press release. Well, we are not idiots. So provided that you do not widely disseminate your own mis-interpretation of the release, most of us will do O.K. And, if we do have any questions at all on the release we can call the number that will be indicated on the release for more information. That source is likely to be much more reliable than your mis-interpretation will be given the precedent you have just recently established. In Post #459 you made a very profound "motherhood statement" --- "What is also important is that individuals be able to understand what a press release is or is NOT telling you." Well Michael. I have to tell you, I nearly shit my pants when I saw that, because I recalled your earlier post #435 wherein you had said --- "Saif brings out a good point with the Carmanah release which I read today. Did you see the stock chart? Stock took a huge dive on a news release that was TECHNICALLY DETAILED, indicating that logs looked good, but the zone was water wet, side wall cores were taken, DST results, etc...." Now Michael, being a CKM shareholder myself, I immediately recognized a huge difference between what your statement says and what the Carmanah Release actually had stated very simply and concisely --- "Electric logs indicate very good but water wet porosity averaging 30 percent with no indications of hydrocarbons. Sidewall core samples were collected and a check shot survey was completed." Carmanah's release conveys quite a different message from your interpretation. The official release says the zone was wet, the logs were conclusive, there was no need to run a DST. You inferred that with just the log data, everything looked really great and only later (after a DST??) did they learn that the zone was actually water bearing. But, nowhere did Carmanah's Release even refer to a DST. Your interpretation of same fabricates a DST. Why?? Your subsequent dissertation on resistivity seems to be offered as an explanation as to why the zone could test water even though the logs looked good. Obviously, this explanation would not have been necessary had you understood what the very simple, very concise press release was actually telling you in the first place. Now, if you might still be concerned that there is a substantial risk with respect to the Strachan well (i.e. the logs might have indicated gas, but the pore space might actually be saturated with distilled water which would make it look like gas on logs) I ask you when was the last time you tested fresh water (let alone distilled water) from a 14,000 ft carbonate reservoir???? Now don't you feel more relaxed? Your Post #459 makes another very profound "motherhood statement" --- ".....caution must be exercised and the tough, intelligent questions must be asked by any investor. The trust must be earned, not just assumed." I could not possibly agree with you more!!!! What a great day for "motherhood"!! Re: ".....many GOOD wells were deemed uneconomic and abandoned simply because a closed chamber test is not, in itself, a very good test." Michael, Michael, Michael!!!!! Be extremely careful about judging others from a different perspective in a different time and please do identify for us just 3 of those GOOD wells that were deemed uneconomic and abandoned because a closed chamber test was run and screwed up the test results. And, I most vehemently do disagree with your comment that a closed chamber test is not, in itself, a very good test. These tests do have their place. And, they are in fact the only kind of DST that can be run, if useful data is to be obtained, in some cases. I have run hundreds of closed chamber tests with complete satisfaction. But then the tests were run in a proper application and I had competent analysts to interpret the data. And, since we are somehow back on the subject of closed chamber tests, I will remind you of your advice to RIK and I in your Post # 222 on the Dalton thread where you said --- "Yes, you can perform a DST on a sour formation. However, it is more expensive and requires what is called a closed chamber test." Will you not just admit here and now that closed chamber tests are NOT required for sour gas?? Closed chamber tests are performed for other reasons. TO BE CONTINUED.... Later, grayhairs P.S.--- Michael, please refrain from "spewing". You have me reaching for a 7 pager that I really do not want to air. Please, tread very carefully!!!

To: Michael M. Cubrilo who wrote (490)	5/24/1998 5:10:00 AM
From: grayhairs	Respond to of 1207

Michael, Re: "On the Bearcat thread, you indicated that you are totally out of the play......A bit hypocritical? That's ok, I forgive you. How the f--- do you come up with this shit Michael? I did not get out of BEA & STF for the reasons you indicate. I gave specific reasons why I got out. You mis-speak again apparently unable to comprehend succinct English. My recent posts [Eg. May 20, 1998 Post #1208] on the BEA thread were in reply to a posts addressed to me on that thread. My parents taught me that it was a matter of good etiquette to reply to one's mail. And, that's what I did, Michael. I responded to questions. I did not spew uncontrollably seeking attention. My introductory paragraph was: "I've been monitoring the thread all along. It's just that I do not like to poke my nose in when I don't have a vested interest and as you know I did sell off my position on April 3(??). I will attempt to answer any questions specifically directed to me, provided that I can do so with out a great deal of effort. I have been told on another thread that that is acceptable thread etiquette!!!!" Do you really think this is hypocritical?? You had already taught me the error of my old ways by May 20. Nonetheless, it should be apparent to you (if you could read, that is) that even after you had enlightened me, I did not feel comfortable being there!!! With respect to your forgiveness Michael, I do not seek it!!! Your deliberate twisting and distorting of facts furnishes threadsters of this site with one additional adjective to describe you now, that being deceitful !! Re: "good description of DST and reservoir evaluation on the Bearcat thread by yourself" Well Michael, I'm sorry to advise that it is not a description of DST and reservoir evaluation. Most petroleum engineers would have seen that!! (The word "perforations" being a major clue and understood by most engineers.) Re: Your Post #498 and discussion of the "little questions" You missed the whole point Michael, but why am I not surprised?? You must ask those questions of yourself Michael, not of others. It is your blinders we're trying to remove. Not those of others!!! Re: Your Post #498 wherein you say "Perhaps I am asking the tough questions in the wrong camp." Michael, where are the tough questions?? You haven't asked ONE yet!! Ditto the intelligent questions that you have referenced in other posts. You only "spew" Michael.. A little jibberish here. A little jibberish there. Throw in a dash of motherhood statements here. Then dig out a technical term, or reference an industry tool or the like in an attempt to impress and justify your presence on the thread. And then close in a short flurry of more jibberish. Oh , and don't forget those motherhood statements too!! You sure did miss your calling young man. You do not seek facts. You do not seek to help others. You do not speak the truth. But, you have stated that you do pride yourself in being a bit of a shit disturber. And so, having admitted that, we now understand your presence on this thread. Well, if that's all you've got to be proud of Michael, I do pity you. Later, grayhairs