Diversified Oil and Gas Holdings (DVFI)

[Imperial Whazoo]

I have to take issue with you about your post, which contained this exact statement: "There are no notes with respect to hydroslotter outside of the mention of the ongoing joint venture in Grimes at present."

I want everybody to go to http://www.bignltd.com/pressreleases.html#
and read for themselves the words that directly cotradict your assertion:

PRs dated
2006.10.03
2006.09.19
2006.08.23
2006.08.02
2006.07.26
2006.07.20
2006.07.12
2006.06.05
2006.06.01
2006.05.30
2006.05.25
AND SO ON AND SO ON AND SO ON!!

In point of irrifutable fact, the JV between Hydroslotter is still proudly and boldly trumpeted in every PR, even the most current PR! Here is the exact wording taken from this most recent PR:
"Biogenerics is a diversified investment venture capital firm focused on exploiting and distributing domestic oil and gas reserves. Biogenerics also has joint venture activities with WW Energy, and Hydroslotter Corporation."

Quite apart from there being, as you erroneously assert, "no notes with respect to hydroslotter outside of the mention of the ongoing joint venture in Grimes at present", there are, in fact note after note after note. Every single PR they release (few though they be) contains ample evidence that the JV is both alive and kicking. And furthermore, there is not one jot or tittle of evidence that this JV, repeatedly proudly trumpeted as it always still is, was ever limited to only the properties in Grimes. In fact, it actually says "joint venture activities" (PLURAL.. not a lone JV at Grimes).

Now, to be fair, you are right that the original PR (dated 2005.01.14) does not say they own 50% but it also does not say there was money invested in Hydroslotter at all. It seems somewhat arbitrary and incongruent to, on the one hand accept the idea that is unsupported by even a single word while repudiating as simply untrue an idea that may be a misreading but that, at the very least, has verbiage supporting it.

For you to favor a version of this issue that accepts that there was an original investment made when there is no evidence of that while simultaneously rejecting a conjecture that there is quite a lot to the 50% income stream that speaks of a real tight relationship of some kind.... well it just strikes me as odd. I do not doubt that some kind of investment was made because it is just common sense, but there is no wording in that PR relating to such. There is wording relating to a 50% income stream. Quite apart from there being reason to accept an original investment having been made and rejecting an ongoing JV, I think the exact opposite is true. So, I don't agree with your assertions, absent evidence. You are entitled to that conclusion but I think otherwise.

For the benefit of all readers of this post, here's my buttressing reasoning, by the way:
I owned a software company for 15 years and it was a private company. I've been in dozens of JVs, on both sides of the table. Being a closely held private company, I will tell you flat out that, to get me to give you a 50% margin, your going to have to have some kind of muscle with which to leverage me. And, when I was on the BIGN side, trying to cut a deal with some other entity for the highest margin I could get, the best I could get out of anybody was a 45% margin. JV deals typical started at 25% and they scaled up to a max of 40% only if and when certain performance targets were attained.

So, when the only PR on the subject states in plain terms that BIGN is to get a 50% margin, my 15 years of doing JVs tells me that BIGN has some muscle with which it leveraged Hydrioslotter. Furthermore, since the verbiage remains uniform & consistent even to this day and given that no repudiation of the original 2005.01.14 PR has ever been proffered, I don't think there is one shred of evidence supporting your assertion that the JV is limited to Grimes or that it is limited to only to JVs BIGN finances. It may be the case, but there is simply no evidence.

You are entitled to that believe this if you wish and if Hydroslotter or BIGN wants to become transparent on this so that we know in actuality, then I am ready, willing and eager. But I don't buy it. Between deductive reasoning built on common sense & experience, and the fact that the PRs still refer to this JV in the plural tense, I think there is ample reason to conclude the JV is not limited to Grimes and that there is some kind of ownership position with which BIGN was able to obtain an extremely attractive margin. I can't prove it 100%, but thats what I think and why I think it... and its not rank speculation, either. Its logic.

Now, lastly, to be clear, I have no problem accepting everything you say if it is buttressed with evidence. My point is simple: the evidence leads to a logical conclusion that the JV is still alive, that some kind of investment had to have been made, and that a whole lot of muscle was in play to leverage a 50% margin out of Hydroslotter. It may not have been 50% ownership but it was muscle and nothing has ever been released that contradicts the original PR on which these conclusions were based. Quite to the contrary, we have the continued presence of the mention of the JV in the boilerplate language of every PR, few though they be.

Sorry man. I can't agree with you unless and until PRs relevant to this are issued. When that is done, I hope they will be transparent and informative. That way, issues such as this will not be issues any more. I'll jump like a Mexican jumping bean to whatever the facts tell me. Just give me facts.

GLTY

Imperial Whazoo