Incorrect.

First, the paragraph in question:

"All statements contained in this press release regarding potential results and future plans and objectives of the Company are forward-looking statements that involve various risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate and actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. The Company undertakes no obligation to update or review any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from our expectations include, but are not limited to, those factors that are disclosed under the heading "Risk Factors" and elsewhere in our documents filed from time to time with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory authorities. Statements regarding our ability to complete transactions, successfully apply technology applications in the re-development of oil and gas fields, realize future production volumes, realize success in our drilling and development activity and forecasts of legal claims, prices, future revenues and income and cash flows and other statements that are not historical facts contain predictions, estimates and other forward-looking statements. Although the Company believes that its expectations are based on reasonable assumptions, it can give no assurance that its goals will be achieved and these statements will prove to be accurate. Important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those included in the forward-looking statements."

That paragraph is actually fairly common in business forecasts, and for good reason.  If I told someone to tell me how their financial future would be over the next year, they could probably give me a good idea.  However, unexpected results or unforeseen circumstances can throw that prediction into a tailspin.  Without a waiver like what you cited, if I relied on a person's forecast, they'd be held liable.  That's unreasonable because so many outside factors can influence a "prediction" that, really, the only legitimate "prediction" should be "well, shit, I dunno.  Go ask a fortune teller."

It's a fairly solid "take this statement with a grain of salt" disclaimer.  Seriously, go watch most any show that gives financial predictions.  That same style of disclaimer will probably show up on the bottom of the screen. 

Lol

Because it's financial predictions.  Financial news, unlike every other type of news, is uniquely dangerous for the news company because if I read that story and say "Wow, I should invest my life savings in Krazy Karl's Kazoo Kompany because MSN Money says they'll do good," if that disclaimer wasn't there, I could claim that the news company had a fiduciary duty to me (a duty which is normally only taken by businesses when they're representing individual clients in those matters).  That means I could sue the company because their predictions weren't accurate if Krazy Karl's Kazoo Kompany turned out to be krap.

Simple question for you, Key.  Take on the role of a business news forecaster.

Pretend you can't use the disclaimer cited above.  So if you ever make a prediction wrong... you can be sued for any losses anyone incurs as a result of you being wrong.  So if you say "This company is going to do good" and the stock value drops, you lose.  If you get a prediction right, however... you're not being paid by clients to provide that advice, so you get paid the value of a news person.

Why would you ever want to be in that job?  You've got all the disadvantages of being someone's stock broker without any of the benefits.  Moreover, you can't manage the risk.  You have to be flawless, or every person who read your article (which circulates on either a city or national level, depending on your company) and ended up wrong can come back to bite you.

How would you manage that?

They weren't forecasting, or predicting.  This info was direct interview information.  Neither the company, nor the news reporter were predicting or forecasting the future.  The one story, reading the politico/engineering portion stated that they had some problems with wells that are damaged, old, or leaking.  You can't get around that one.

The second story was the company attempting to allay FEARS to the STOCK HOLDERS, by saying a lot of hot air words in a balloon of lies, that even I could pop with a small needle.  Allaying fears, is a long way from actually forecasting a future.  Saying, "well, we're dealing with the problems, but those problems aren't that big, so you shouldn't worry at all with your investment...."

New technology?  You know what they're talking about?  Remember that explosive oil rig that polluted the entire gulf region with millions of gallons of oil?  That's the new technology they were talking about.  Because they had to come up with a new way of capping the stupid thing.  You can call an old device, in a new method of dealing with problems as "new technology".  And that's what they were doing, using "new how methods", for dealing with seriously ONGOING problems.

So no, I don't agree on your view point, that they were "Forecasting" or "predicting" future events.  The event they were speaking of in both the actual problem of the company, and the story of the company stating everything is kosher, is of CURRENT EVENTS.  Current events.  It's not like their predicting oil futures.  I can predict oil futures.

First story.  They got quite a few problems in current wells or development well production. 

Second story.  The company is allaying fears to investors, so that the companies stocks don't dip.

Neither story has anything to do with predictions about pricing, or value, although the 2nd story is attempting to head the investors off at the pass of removing their investments.

What came first.  "The problem, or the fear of how much money they would lose from the problem?"

lol, Key will never admit he was wrong on anything, just like Xeno

Pumping WATER, is fracking, and they did use the term pumping WATER.  What do you think pumping water into an area does?  The new technology was refering to a process of attempting to deal with leaking or damaged wells, in this case capping.

Now in case someone has problems understanding what SPECULATION is, the story below tells how some idiots are PREDICTING future oil prices will be from imports up to the year 2035.  Twenty-four years from now...

http://news.msn.com/world/us-to-become- … n-2015-iea

As for the stories above, you really need to look at that companies disposition on the market, and all the news related items concurrently dealing with Safety Action reports, oil field/well shutdown, production quota's, and really look at the body of the words used in the documentation.  If you can't see the rotting tree in a forest, well i'm not going to debate a few blind eyes on other peoples part.

Takes but 1 day for a fast reaction team to restore a pipe. bots check interior for further damage, bad pipe dug up, cut out, and new pipe swapped in.

There is plenty of local piping in most regions and where there is no good source they can still truck it in before the welders have cut and removed the old pipe.

This is why land pipes are better than ocean pipes.

Just be a man key, admit you were wrong.