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 : coastal caribbean (cco@) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SnakeInATuxedo who wrote (758)	4/10/1999 11:50:00 PM
From: Edwin S. Fujinaka	Respond to of 4686

A "Real War" as you envision it may be waged by lawyers in a courtroom. If it comes to only that scenario, CCO may win $100 Billion in Court or CCO may wind up with nothing. Fairness and purely legal considerations should have CCO as the winner. If the law and "good faith" business dealings and contracts are fairly applied, the outcome seems to be clearly in favor of a CCO victory. Our legal system doesn't always work as advertised though. I think that part of the problem has been the absence of any middle ground in this case. It's been either win big or lose everything. Hopefully, if people can see a reasonable compromise that gives something to both sides, we can reach some sort of amicable settlement. My guess is that a settlement like I have outlined would immediately boost the stock into the $15 to $25 range. A more detailed review of the actual oil prospects could add a lot to that if the estimates of tens of billions of barrels can be verified through some sort of independent appraisal. The increase in shareholders value would not come out of the pockets of the Florida taxpayers. Florida taxpayers would only come up with a small fraction of the legal proceeds in their own tobacco litigation and it would only be an interest free loan not a payment that is gone forever. Viewed as a loan, only the bond interest will be chargeable to this deal. Interest on $500 Million will be less than $50 Million for a municipal bond, much less. How can the State of Florida turn down a deal like that? When you compare that to a potential legal judgement in the range of $100 Billion, it looks like a no brainer to me. The biggest problem is to get the public to see how such a deal is not some sort of political payoff. The first step is to convince the public that so much oil and so much money are really at issue here. There may be forces within CCO who need to go to the final court mandated settlement. These issues will also have to be addressed. Then, there are the bomb throwers who will fight to the bitter end. They will always be there, but even they may get something out of a formal delay in drilling just based on money. We'll see.

To: SnakeInATuxedo who wrote (758)	4/12/1999 1:57:00 PM
From: Edwin S. Fujinaka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4686

Lawrence,...Your comments about the unfairness of some of the environmentalists is well taken. The Panama City News Herald mentioned it in their article published Saturday, April 10th. Although it is not the article that I hoped to see (perhaps next Monday) it does mention the possibility of a Billion barrels of oil again. I am hopeful that a compromise deal is possible and everyone can support the search for oil within the Continental USA for National Security reasons if nothing else. newsherald.com Saturday, April 10, 1999 Judge rejects Coastal's bid to drill wells MATT MOORE Business Editor A Florida judge recommended that 12 permits sought by Apalachicola-based Coastal Petroleum Co. be denied because they were "incomplete." State Division of Administrative Hearings Judge Larry Sartin issued the ruling late last month in Tallahassee. Coastal, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bermuda-based Coastal Caribbean Oils & Minerals Ltd., filed applications more than two years ago with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to drill 12 oil wells along its 800,000-acre leasehold off the Gulf Coast of Florida. The company's original request was denied, officials said, because DEP had demanded that Coastal Petroleum had to provide the state with "extensive additional information and studies." Coastal said it had already met the department's basic standards when it initially applied for the permits. When DEP refused to issue the permits, Coastal demanded a hearing before an administrative law judge and claimed that DEP's additional demands were an "unadopted rule." Sartin agreed, but found that DEP had "sustained the necessary heavy burden of proof" that was required to impose the additional requirements. Sartin's recommendation was forwarded to DEP for consideration and final action. Coastal said that if DEP adopted the court's recommendation, they would file an appeal in Florida's First District Court of Appeals in Tallahassee. The ruling was not related to Coastal's pursuit of a permit to drill an oil well off the coast of St. George Island in Franklin County. Coastal said its seismic surveys of the sea floor in that area have shown the possibility of at least a billion barrels of untapped crude could be between 12,000 and 18,000 feet below the sea floor there. The move to drill there has prompted angry responses from a variety of people and groups who opposed any oil drilling there, including the Nature Conservancy, the Florida Audubon Society and Earthjustice. State law forbade any offshore drilling in Florida waters in 1990, but Coastal, which has had the leaseholds since December 1944, was exempted from that law. Oral arguments in that case are scheduled to begin May 12 in Tallahassee. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © The News Herald Copyright Notice