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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : MTEI - Mountain Energy - Info Only -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LoneStar who wrote (14)	5/30/1998 9:45:00 AM
From: sandstuff	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52

To: BILL L (4913 ) From: BILL L Saturday, May 30 1998 3:05AM ET Reply # of 5044 TALLYMAN REPOST: Insightful vIews on ME from Tim. P (a non-SI ME DD member and lurker) in response to the dissenting view posted today. Thanx, Tim. Bill, Just returned to the office and saw the posts. He's got a point that Independent Oilmen banning together to revitalize "behind pipe" oil are a dime a dozen - but in case I think these folks have the experience (per the PR) and are doing this at the right time. True, the fundamentals really do remain to be seen because this is a capital-intensive venture - I suspect their going to need a significant amount of money to get going, I'm wondering if the PR predicted for next week addresses that. I don't know much about West Virginia. But just because major oil companies have pulled out does not mean it won't be very profitable for a smaller outfit like ME. My understanding is that major oil companies like to get the biggest bang for their buck. No major explorer is going sell his company on sending the troops into a small to medium operation, at least not yet. Also remember, these guys are not Shell, nor do they want to be, small to medium is fine because it's the overhead and profit that count. Nothing wrong with a "generic" release. I think the good detail lies in the latest PR which details WHO THEY ARE. In fact, right now the PRs should be generic because they want to catch the attention and understanding of the layman for more funding. I also think the independent evaluations are reliable. In MHO, What these guys are doing is great, partly, their unitizing stacks of available geological data to look again for suspected oil/NG fields (during the late 70's to early 80's the major oil companies were looking for fuel everywhere - they even were drilling in Upstate N.Y. ! - they were hiring droves of kids with only B.S. degrees to help, unfortunately, alot of them had to shift to the growing environmental clean-up field when the big companies lost stateside interest and did massive layoffs). On their PR, I was encouraged by the statement that they are only considering offshore sites in less than 50 feet of water - obviously they are avoiding expensive operations. Another great characteristic of them is that they are a energy company and not just a oil company, big difference (my point, to use an example, is that alot railroad companies went out of business years ago because they saw themselves as railroad and not transportation companies). The clean burning fuel issue is critical. Power and energy is being deregulated in California, that is, the consumer now or soon will have a choice on who he buys it from. At the expense of utilities - this new competitive structure will be successful because people like me (100 other million Americans) will pay slightly more for clean power. They appear to be right on top of this issue. Another big-picture issue is what was stressed in the SA articles - there is a finite amount of fossil fuel. The more that gets depleted - the more valuable the remaining amounts becomes (Economics 101). What I have not heard discussed much in relation to fuel consumption are following: 1) Africa, South America, and China - they have yet to be developed and will be very thirsty in the next 5-10 years; 2) the Asian tigers will emerge from the doldrums with a huge appetite; 3) IMHO, forget about the Russian reserves - more than likely they'll find some way to screw up production or delivery to the world market; and 4) the Middle East - Explosive. In fact those with an interest in oil can thank Saddamm for torching 2 billion barrels during the Gulf War. It's in North America's interest to avoid depending on this region at all costs. The bottom line is that energy and especially fossil fuel is going to become more valuable in the coming years - therefore this will help small-medium operations in the U.S. such as ME be successful. IMHO, if these guys make the right moves, and the energy situation unfolds like alot of analysts believe, it would not surprise me if a large energy company buys out what is currently ME in 5 to 10 years for over $ 30/share. In fact, just recently a Morgan Stanley Rep. was just hawking to me how great the oil rig companies are going to be (MDCO for one). I'm far from being a true expert. But from what I know, I think these guys could be winners because of timing. An old college professor of mine worked in the oil industry for 14 or 15 years and his son now has 30+ years experience in this field, I'm going to seek their opinions on this and report. Good luck, Bill. Even if this stalls at .85 to 1.0, (don't think so), I'm still very happy (not satisfied, mind you !) with my current appreciation. Also, it great cooperating/sharing with like-minded folks on your SI board. Please post of any of this you want. I know I've rambled here with most-likely alot grammer errors - so feel free to edit at will if your going to post this. Sincerely, Tim HEADER: Insightful vews on ME from Tim. P (a non-SI ME DD member and lurker) in response to the dissenting view posted today. Thanx, Tim.