ie. "hablo". As far as I'm concerned it's a certainty.

Obviously this is someone who has an aural knowledge of Spanish but is ignorant of standard orthography. In "aulo", the omission of initiall "h" is perfectly normal in uneducated writing. And in many varieties of Spanish, /abl/ can easily come out as /aul/ (I don't have documentation to hand, but it's a matter of common experience).

"You" for "Yo" and "quero" for "quiero" strongly suggest to me a Brazilian Portuguese influence. That makes it all the more plausible, I think, that the writer should turn the /bl/ into /ul/: that is, should have heard it that way and therefore spells it that way.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 14 mins (2011-09-25 16:46:48 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Those who talk about spelling should be more careful: for "initiall", read "initial".

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 48 mins (2011-09-25 17:20:26 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I forget to mention "sempre" for "siempre": another error which might suggest a Portuguese influence.

Aside from the Portuguese angle, the in <bl>, even in standard Castilian is realised as an approximant /β̞/, and from there it is a short step to the velarised /u/. Historically, there was commonly much confusion of , <v> and , and the spelling "aulo" would not be very unusual in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century documents.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 50 mins (2011-09-25 17:22:33 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

HTML and phonetics don't mix; sorry.