insider trader-stock pick of the week - 06feb, page-33

Pto,

I think you are right about disagreeing. The 95% was an error on my part also, it is P90 (90%). But even so, by your account that's 85% off the mark. Not exactly a small error margin?

Also, I was not saying they couldn't test both targets but salt dome oil collection generally happens under the dense salt cap (lighter than rock but solid enough to trap oil) thus the flank formations are less likely to contain as much oil (as not as much can be trapped there except in pockets which are anomalies in each dome).

The het lime formations contain oil but its not recoverable. This has been tested by MAD alone (I cannot find any records of another company testing this) and I think was a valuable exercise.

You have no empirical proof (and there is none) to say MAD cannot increase production.

In fact, if you look at 2011 trend they increased it significantly, very quickly. Now if they can increase that much in 1 year, why couldn't they do in 2012.

This depends entirely on your view of management, currently people are angry about production rates and listening to downrampers like yourself you would almost assume 2011 never happened.

They went from 200 barrels to 750 in 1 year when they had ALL RIGS they owned concentrating on production increases from Blue ridge.

In 2012 they did production and reserves testing on Boling and Nash dome Q1 & part of Q2. They got rid of their contract drilling end of Q2/beginning of Q3 and test Hetlime formations in Q4 while signing off the Gulf deal.

Management have been pretty forward about this and personally I believe them.

I think thats all I have to say on the issue. I appreciate that there is risk involved if they cannot get production up, but they proved they could in 2011. Their large reserve life being seen as a downside is a silly thing to fret about at this stage in their life.

They became a developer no more than a year ago. This isn't an Exxon or a BP mate. They haven't been producing for 20 years where a fall would indicate incompetence.