RE:RE:RE:RE:ellis martin interview Hi goldenarm. It's a worthwhile debate. My view was that the news was perfectly good if the company was valued at $2 or so a share, but not for a company that was at $4.30 a share. In my view, the value reflected expectations of strong profits ($200m a quarter had been mentioned by Don Mosher), and fairly soon. So, essentially, a combination of time and money.
With the company stating that it was prioritizing wells near this 1% well, my expectation is that the wells will not be as profitable as when we were assuming 1,2,4,5 and 6 (or even 1, 2 and 4) at start-up. Wells 1 & 2 will eventually come on line, but later. So less money, and a longer wait. The high nitrogen content helps, but there's an implicit
negative that is not heard mentioned previously--namely, that the gas in wells 1 and 2 will cost more to produce. And a higher margin helps, but the much lower helium concentration in my view probably more than offsets that.
Of course, I don't, however, have any actual detailed numbers for the potential returns on well 4 and its offsets. So my assumptions might all be wrong. But that, I hope, explains my reaction on the day of the news release. All 100% my point of view.