Tryoty - "I suggest that the Chinese wrote off Taq-taq from the beginning and that the JDZ was a significant contributor to the final price, like many articles have said."
That makes no sense at all. Where are these "Many articles have said" ??? Also how did you figure what a "significant contributor" is?
"Tap, you can put the whole alphabet in there and it won't assign the value Sinopec has put on anything.
In your formula Sinopec could value B as nil and the JDZ as the prize. It can't be proven... only Sinopec knows."
You always put a value on the potential of ERHC's assets. Isn't that why you are invested in ERHC? Then how can you discount That Addax's reserves (550M) at the time of the Acquisition as being nil. That statement makes no sense or it is at least contradictory. You can't have it both ways.
There have been 2 schools of thought that the JDZ was a "significant"
contributor to the value of the acquisition, as you have stated above and
the opinion that the JDZ was "not a significant" contributor in valuing the acquisition.
If only Sinopec knows then how can you suggest anything at all.
The only truisim is that only Sinopec knows "for sure". The problem I have always had is using the word "significant" on both sides of the argument. Significant to me means > then 50% If that is a debateable assumption then I plead guilty for putting forth a logical explanation.
sig·nif·i·cant [ sig níffikənt ]
adjective
Definition:
1. meaningful: having or expressing a meaning
2. communicating secret meaning: having a hidden or implied meaning
a significant nod of the head
3. momentous and influential: having a major or important effect
a significant idea
4. substantial: relatively large in amount
Her work was a significant contribution to the project.
5. statistics occurring not merely by chance: relating to the occurrence of events or outcomes that are too closely linked statistically to be mere chance
JMHO
Tap
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
