Replies to post #4181 on Tri-Valley Corp (fka TVLYQ)

[jonesieatl]

Hey , that's what makes for good discussion!

If everybody thought exactly the same way about available information .... there would not be any discussion forums ;)

To hold up my end of the discussion and to offer support for my 'premise' that there is some level of wiggle room in TIV's PRs .... I offer , again , their own words.

TIV's 6/27 PR which proclaims "total field production recorded at 2,058.3 BOED" goes on to call that a "production test" as opposed to a sustained daily production rate , and says they "anticipate" a stable rate in that general area.

"The most recent production test was made to measure facilities capabilities in anticipation of establishing a stable production rate in the 2,000 BOED returning Tri-Valley to operating profitability and providing a platform for further ramp up of oil and gas production."

regards,

jonesie

[jonesieatl]

I'm looking forward to seeing ....

.... some clear and unequivocal numbers up on DOGGR ... but I realize I might have to wait a while and see something definitive in upcoming SEC filings.

Along those lines , I've got a question about which you might have an opinion ....

If the production numbers in TIV's PRs are in fact clear and unequivocal , why are they using the Confidentiality technicality to avoid submitting the numbers to DOGGR?

I think we can rule out one possible answer to that question .... if the PR'd numbers are in fact an accurate representation of sustainable and growing daily production rates , with no uncertainty or doubt about them , that would imply they are not concerned about competing lease-buyers .... unless they think potential competitors aren't reading their PRs.

What other legitimate reason might there be for refraining from showing current and potential shareholders exactly what their oil production was for March , April , May and now June?

In other words , why would they not proclaim these numbers as proudly on DOGGR as they proclaim them in Safe Harbor protected PRs where they have the latitude to use words such as anticipate?

I can't think of a valid reason ... can you?

jonesie

[geoscience2]

"I do not accept the premise of your post that there is "uncertainty" or doubt about these numbers.. the PR's are clear and unequivocal."

Ok Jaybird, we have the real numbers now. Please show us in this quarterly report where the June PR of 2,058 BOED rate is "clear and unequivocal", based on cash flow. TIA

Geo

[jonesieatl]

With TIV showing ~ 870 BOEPD in June ....

.... as Geo pointed out , including all 'confidential wells' , what does that say about TIV's past PR's touting 2000+ BOEPD being 'clear and unequivocal'?

What do you now think about "the premise of (my) post that there is "uncertainty" or doubt about these numbers" ??

What happened to "TIV $15 by August IMO." ??

What happened to "How can they say it? Because it is true, if they were lieing(sic) they will go to jail."

Will you be checking on the Visiting Days schedule?

Just messin' with ya , but it does just go to show .....

jonesie