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 - No BASHING Allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Little Engine who wrote (1334)	6/15/1998 9:31:00 PM
From: jhild	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11684

How can that be? Jack Uselton is really big in O&G. He wouldn't have made that kind of mistake. But it seems that John Christensen, given his track record to date with this company (see #reply-4839760), might have.

To: Little Engine who wrote (1334)	6/15/1998 9:37:00 PM
From: eric deaver	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11684

All doubts will be removed by the Stagg survey. Bottom line remains that all preliminary stock valuation (i.e., $2.85+ book) was conservative and did not take into consideration errors on the side on USGS (which I'm sure you realize is a totally different entity from WV Geological Survey).

To: Little Engine who wrote (1334)	6/15/1998 10:49:00 PM
From: skreiger	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 11684

LE, Although Mr. Deaver ("I'd trust a geologist before a penny stock president") has already answered your numerous questions in ways even you can't twist the them, please verify the following from your supposed email conversation ("If it's not in black and white, then it's just hearsay") with the WV Geological Survey office: My experience with the USGS proedures (which we also use in this office) is such that I would be really suprised if they consistantly found only 1/4 to 2/5 of the coal actually present. Preliminary estimates using available data are necessarily rough but we aim to be within 25% of the amount later mined. I read this to say that Mr. McClelland would be "very surprised" if they found "only" 1/4 to 2/5 of the coal actually present. Meaning, according to a literal interpretation, that he would expect to find more than that amount. Now, should we accept his literal statement or is he wrong? Should we all interpret something different than what he said? BTW, Deaver's eating your lunch. Try a different strategy...