isn't it peaceful?, page-6

Nihilism,
I am trying to make the point that members of this forum allow an attitude that to be long is good and acceptable but to be short / believe a company is overvalued is somehow wrong or inacceptable. This ought not to be the case. The vitriol that I have seen thrown at those who have (correctly) doubted the story, such as Paul100 etc, is frankly disgusting behaviour done by those who hide behind the veil of secrecy that the internet affords (and no, I don't know him / use multiple accounts bla bla bla). So I don't find continual references to 'downrampers' particularly funny. I don't call people who are long 'uprampers', I simply present my case based on critical analysis and all of the facts.
I am not a qualified reservoir engineer so I will not estimate a reserve number. I don't expect the same of you.
What I do know is that, by definition, reserves must be commercially recoverable quantities of oil with a 90% confidence interval. Texas requires very transparent disclosure of production data at the lease level (unfortunately not at the well level which would be even better but not to worry). What is evident to me is that a large number of wells are being drilled which have been sold to the market as "proved" and yet are not generating commercial levels of production.
In my last post alone I provided evidence of this - in the last quarter MAD drilled 4 dry development wells. This is irrefutable evidence that a downward revision is due, at least for the locations that have come in dry and the implications of those results for other analogous locations.
I note that Ptolemic, who refers to having relevant qualifications, quotes 9mmbbls based on his / her independent analysis, but even that is due a downward revision. I'm happy to work off that level rather than the 102 mmbbls until such time as a well regarded reserve consulting firm does a report.
In your own financial interests I strongly suggest that you pull up the monthly production data by lease and plot the production rates vs wells drilled on each dome. It makes it clear as day that many of the wells are not producing anywhere near the type curve they require to satisfy commerciality and therefore a revision is due. If you believe the reserves story you could run the workover argument and yet we aren't seeing production kick back up without new wells which you would expect after wells are worked over and more production comes online.
I note further that the November production data is out - the 19 Dec announcement stated that November production was ~600 bopd. In fact it was 564 bopd in November as per TRRC GROSS, which doesn't include royalties (25%) and other working interest owners in the assets (albeit minimal). i.e. not only is production being over reported by 6% but includes oil that does not belong to Maverick. IMO more window dressing by a desparate management team trying to hold up a plunging share price.
Short.