Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
You have a link to prove that?
No, actually they're shareholders holding certificates.
Can you provide a link to where he said it? TIA
Lol, surely you're aware that the 11 shareholders you quote is actually the brokerages that hold shares for actual shareholders.
Pretty funny.
Hey foxwoodsfan, hope you're doing well. The place has changed, for the better. The GEO-tubes array is very impressive and the place looks ready for production, they just weren't running the plant.
The schedule for the dump trucks is usually every thirty minutes with a three truck rotation. We were there long enough to see they weren't running the articulated dumps. No dust, no noise and no trucks from the mine. Driving from the north on SR 306 you can usually see dust at the mine but there wasn't any on a very dry day.
They're busy, just not processing the day we visited.
Best of luck to you Sir!
luminari, sorry to hear you're "under water".
The positive, the place was very busy on the outside with front loaders moving moist soils away from the processing plant. They had trucks in the entrance door doing work. The large pile of ore to be processed that was amassed in fall and winter of 2011 is much much smaller. They had dump trucks covered with mud showing they had been moving processed soils. There were more and larger geo-tubes, all full of water with no visible leaks and ready for cleaning.
The negative, the twin screw and conveyor belts were motionless and dry. There were no trucks on the road between the mine and processing plant moving ore down or processed ore back for remediation. There weren't any security people staring me down like usual when taking photos.
It's a gold mine and its a processing plant but it didn't grab attention enough to say, it was making solid money at this point.
I sure would like to give you stellar news but it was kind of in the middle. Best of fortune to you!!
One has to wonder if shareholders in the other 15 companies with trading halts are the least bit optimistic today. Their CEO's haven't aligned with shareholders and declared innocence, ours did.
Is this going to be a fun fight? He** no, it will be a tough grind it out lugubrious fight. But Jeff Reid fired back in world wide media that he and KMAG are innocent and their declarations and earnings numbers are accurate. He's going fight for his reputation, for his company and for shareholders who have entrusted him with their monies.
None of us as individuals are in the cross-hairs of the SEC and don't fully fathom the confidence it took to declare complete innocence, staring back at the SEC. If JR has made the slightest error, he's in big trouble. IMO he's sporting a sizable set after today's PR and he's the main reason I put money into and will leave it in KMAG.
Why don't you ask the person that typed the bullet point instead of asking message board people who had nothing to do with the information?
The links works for me, interesting. Try going to Youtube and typing in "PCFG Blackrock Processing Plant", the label I gave the vid.
.079, gone with one purchase, .084 is UP!
This is pencil thin and has already traded the daily average. Looks like its ready for a move upward IMO.
Welcome. Here's a short video shot at the same time. Best of luck to all longs here!!
Thanks uwf2466. I didn't see any rocks or boulders, they are processing soils still IMO. There are three main differences from last years visit. The new, larger geo-tubes on the north side, the missing stockpile of to-be-processed ore and the ore trucks coming and going every couple of minutes.
If you look closely on the left side at photo number one, you will see gravel. It appears to be screened because of the uniform size but it's the nearest thing to rocks on the processing site.
Visited PCFG's processing plant in Crescent Valley on September 13th around 1:00 PST for about 30 minutes.
There wasn't any activity inside showing ore gravels being processed as the twin screw and conveyor belts were at a stand still. There was a heavy duty pickup backed in the east access door and mud covered dump truck near it. There were two front loaders busily moving moist soils around the yard.
The north yard has extremely large geo-tubes full of water in place. The east side has the same sized geo-tubes from the past several years.
There was activity with about 8 visible workers but no proof of long term continuous processing. The piles of ore to be processed that were highly visible and taller than the processing building last year are much smaller. No ore trucks were active coming or going to the mine in the half an hour we watched.
Good luck to all longs here.
I want Mr. Mason to say basically what you just typed. Like others here, details of exactly what the increased A/S would be given toward. Just show us what you're going to do.
I'm with you, he's got to justify the actions before I change my mind and vote yes.
I still like that he's isn't mandating the moves, hes asking for our vote.
Don't know of any off the top and don't want to waste time looking.
If you think this has no chance if we vote for a R/S, I'd sell and run right now.
Sure could and the right acquisitions could turn WGAS into a monster of a stock. All Mason has to do is show the potential to some of us doubters. If he does, I'd vote with him.
Thank you, timing is everything, eh?
Based on PR's and the WGAS Blog, Ton's been very transparent with shareholders. He's was very upfront with the potential of a R/S and A/S increase and pointed it out in the blog and then by SEC filing. One would have to think he has pretty good reasons for initiating both actions.
If as ONEMORECOMMA pointed out, if they would increase shareholders value, the markets determination could be just the opposite of what people usually expect, a share price rise. At present I'm against the A/S increase, pending his lobbying efforts.
Ref: "I will vote the direction that Tony says makes the most sense for the company and the shareholders value."
Well said. If he provides a basis for raising the A/S that would increase our value, I'd sure look at it. Haven't seen a reason to support the A/S increase, yet. He very well may provide that reason.
Once again, WGAS management can mandate that we up the A/S count to 1 billion, the SEC affords them that choice. HOWEVER, they have given those of us who hold shares, a vote on whether the A/S count is increased. It won't happen if shareholders vote against the measure.
That is a very inaccurate view of a R/S. Shareholders equity value is exactly equal after a split because the share price rises ten fold while the shares held reduce ten fold.
WGAS could mandate a R/S and an A/S increase but they haven't have they. They are allowing shareholders to make the call after presenting the facts to us. THOSE OF US WHO ARE SHAREHOLDERS WILL DETERMINE WHETHER WE HAVE A R/S AND AND A/S INCREASE. OUR EQUITY WILL BE THE SAME
It's been a goal since the first of the year and Steven Ross's appointment as VP. Here's a doc provided by CDNRichard detailing his objectives:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=70829969
Nice post with some welcome background information. It's all about patience with this play so far. The uplisting PR should get us in gear.
Since you bring WGASers the ham, taters, gravy, greens, fixin's and desert, I don't mind throwing a napkin on the table.
Looks like a a corporate vote is very complex process that is monitored by several State and Federal agencies:
http://100fstreet.com/index.php/2011/02/the-anatomy-of-a-shareholder-vote-calculation/
Counting up the votes from a shareholder meeting is not as easy as one might think.
First off, there are four different sources that dictate how the votes are tabulated: the federal securities laws, the corporate laws of the state in which a company is organized, the rules of the national securities exchanges and a company’s charter documents.
On top of that there are five different categories of votes to consider: votes for and against a proposal, which are self-explanatory, broker non-votes, abstentions and withheld votes (more on these latter three in a second).
Then there’s a quorum requirement to be met, and, finally, the approval threshold for each proposal has to be considered, which can range from a plurality of the votes cast to a super majority of the votes present and entitled to vote, and anything in between.
Broker Non-Votes
A broker non-vote occurs when a broker has not received voting instructions from the beneficial owner of shares held in street name and the broker does not have, or declines to exercise, discretionary authority to vote the shares. Brokers only have discretionary authority to vote uninstructed shares on routine matters, such as the ratification of a company’s auditing firm.
Under the laws of most states broker non-votes are considered present at a meeting, and, as such, are included in the calculation of whether a quorum exists, however, they are not considered entitled to vote, and so have no effect on the outcome of a proposal.
The Dodd-Frank Changes to Broker Non-Votes
Following enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, national securities exchanges were required to adopt rules prohibiting members from voting uninstructed shares on matters related to the election of directors, executive compensation and other significant matters as determined by the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
In September 2010, the Commission approved amendments to New York Stock Exchange Rule 452, and corresponding Section 402.08 of the Listed Company Manual, and Nasdaq Stock Market Rule 2251, to implement the Dodd-Frank Act’s requirements. At present, the Commission anticipates proposing rules to define “other significant matters” sometime between April and July of 2011.
Among other things, the NYSE and Nasdaq Dodd-Frank-imposed rule changes have added uncontested director elections (formerly considered a routine matter), shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation and shareholder advisory votes on the frequency of advisory votes on executive compensation to the category of non-routine matters.
It is also worth noting that these rule changes relate to NYSE and Nasdaq member firms, not to the companies whose securities are listed on the NYSE or Nasdaq markets, so the changes effect all companies, even those with securities quoted in over the counter markets like the OTC Bulletin Board and the reporting tiers of the OTC Pink Markets.
Abstentions
An abstention occurs when a shareholder affirmatively chooses not to vote on a proposal.
Under the laws of most states abstentions are considered present and entitled to vote at a meeting, and, as such, are included in the calculation of whether a quorum exists. However, abstentions are not generally considered votes cast, meaning that where a proposal requires the approval of “a majority of the votes cast” abstentions will have no effect, but, where a proposal requires the approval of “a majority of the votes present” or “a majority of the votes present and entitled to vote” abstentions will have the same effect as votes cast against the proposal.
Withheld Votes
A withheld vote is a category of vote that has come about as a result of the Commission’s proxy rules.
Securities Exchange Act Rule 14a-4 requires that a proxy for the election of directors include an option for shareholders to withhold authority to vote for a director nominee. The rule does not, however, require that a proxy include an option for shareholders to vote against a director nominee, unless the laws of the state in which the company is organized give effect to such a vote (most don’t).
Under the laws of most states directors are elected by a plurality vote, meaning that the director nominee receiving the highest number of votes, regardless of the number of votes withheld, is elected (i.e., a director nominee can receive 1 for vote, while 999 votes are withheld, and still be elected). As a consequence, over the last half dozen or so years, companies have started to amend their charter documents and implement governance policies to give effect to withheld votes. For example, one approach has been to require a director to tender their resignation, which may or may not be accepted, if they receive a greater number of withheld votes than for votes. Another approach has been to simply adopt a majority voting standard for the election of directors.
Tallying it All Up
Has the quorum requirement been satisfied?
Before any business can be transacted at a shareholder meeting there must be a quorum present.
By default most states define a quorum as the presence of a majority of the shares entitled to vote in person or by proxy. A company can modify the default requirement in its charter documents, subject to certain limitations imposed by state law (e.g., in Delaware a quorum cannot be less than one-third of the shares entitled to vote) and by the rules of the exchange on which the company’s securities are listed (e.g., Nasdaq requires a quorum of at least 33.33% of a company’s outstanding common voting stock; NYSE generally requires a quorum of not less than a majority of a company’s outstanding shares).Once it is established that a quorum exists, the approval thresholds applicable to each proposal have to be considered and the related votes tabulated and counted. Let’s look at this in the context of the shareholder advisory vote on executive compensation and the shareholder advisory vote on the frequency of advisory votes on executive compensation. Remember these are non-routine matters for which brokers do not have discretionary voting authority, so shares represented by broker non-votes count as present for purposes of establishing a quorum but not as shares entitled to vote on the proposals.
What approval threshold is applicable to the shareholder advisory vote on executive compensation?
There is no approval threshold required for the shareholder advisory vote on executive compensation. As of this writing, of the companies that have reported results for their advisory votes on executive compensation, most have considered the proposal approved if it received the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares present and entitled to vote, with abstentions having the same effect as a vote cast against the proposal, though in three instances companies have specified that both abstentions and broker non-votes have the same effect as votes cast against the proposal.
Most of the remaining companies have considered the proposal approved if it received the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast, with abstentions having no effect.In a few cases companies have not disclosed an approval threshold at all, though in each a majority of the shares present and entitled to vote did approve the proposal.
What approval threshold is applicable to the shareholder advisory vote on the frequency of advisory votes on executive compensation?
There is no approval threshold required for the shareholder advisory vote on the frequency of advisory votes on executive compensation. However, if a company wishes to exclude certain shareholder proposals that seek advisory votes on executive compensation or that relate to the frequency of advisory votes on executive compensation, then its shareholders must approve a single frequency choice by a majority of the votes cast, with abstentions having no effect, and the company must adopt a policy that is consistent with that shareholder choice.
As of this writing, of the companies that have reported results for their advisory votes on the frequency of votes on executive compensation, most have considered the frequency receiving a plurality of the votes cast as the frequency approved by shareholders. Though, there have been a handful of companies that have considered the frequency receiving a majority of the votes cast as the frequency approved by shareholders. If companies in this latter group then adopt policies that are consistent with their shareholders’ vote, they may exclude future shareholder proposals related to advisory votes on executive compensation or the frequency of advisory votes on executive compensation.
Tony Mason and his team are giving shareholders the say on a reverse split when they can just mandate that it will happen. Pretty fair minded IMO.
Reverse Stock Splits
A reverse stock split reduces the number of shares and increases the share price proportionately. For example, if you own 10,000 shares of a company and it declares a one for ten reverse split, you will own a total of 1,000 shares after the split. A reverse stock split has no effect on the value of what shareholders own. Companies often split their stock when they believe the price of their stock is too low to attract investors to buy their stock. Some reverse stock splits cause small shareholders to be "cashed out" so that they no longer own the company’s shares.
A company’s board of directors may declare a reverse stock split without shareholder approval. Although the SEC has authority over a broad range of corporate activity, state corporate law and a company’s articles of incorporation and by-laws govern reverse stock splits.
If a company is required to file reports with the SEC, it may notify its shareholders of a reverse stock split on Forms 8-K, 10-Q and 10-K.
http://www.sec.gov/answers/reversesplit.htm
EEDG looks like a real company with real products. In the micro arena they rarely sit still they're either moving up or down. This sure looked like a bottom to some of us. GLTU
Ref:"i think that the only people buying this right now are the bagholders"
Not true at all. I've watched EEDG for several months but never bought before today. I suspect others have done the same.
I use two accounts, a cash and a margin. The cash account, Scottrade, always takes three days to clear before the monies can be used for trading. With the margin account, Ameritrade, the money is always available for trading, seconds after any transaction.
I have contacted both brokerages about the situation and they both have the same policies on the amount of time before trading can take place with a cash account, three days.
Here's an article from Wikipedia that describes exactly what happens with cash and margin accounts:
Trade Day + 3 Days
In the United States, stocks take three days to settle. If you buy on Monday, you don't pay for the purchase until Thursday. This is known as trade day plus 3 days or T+3.
This three day settlement period is considered an extension of credit from the broker to the customer. Because the transaction is considered a credit issue, the Federal Reserve Board is responsible for the rule which is officially called Regulation T.
If a brokerage customer is approved for margin on the account there will be a line of credit to "cushion" the three day settlement period. This credit allows customers to trade while the cash settles. For accounts without margin (cash accounts), stock traders must have enough cash in the account to pay for any purchases the day they are due. A client in good faith agrees to make full payment of settled funds or deposit securities within the three day settlement period and not to sell before making such payment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_riding
Any shareholders here that put WGAS shares up for sale to keep them from being "shorted" are participating in an urban legend. It's an old wives tale that is absolutely false.
If you have a Margin Account, you can borrow funds to buy more shares than your funding would normally allow. By the same token, in a Margin Account the brokerage can borrow against your shares, EVEN IF THEY ARE UP FOR SALE. Most brokerages won't borrow against your shares unless you are actually using your margin.
TD Ameritrade recently sent out documentation stating that they would notify their customers if their shares were being shorted. Their policy is typically to only short against those utilizing their margin.
If you want to absolutely lock up shares and make them unavailable for shorting against, you need a Cash Account. You can't borrow Brokerage margin money and conversely, No shares can be borrowed from a Cash Account to short against. The negative to a Cash Account is after a trade has been completed, the funds from the trade aren't usable for three trading days or until the trade has cleared.
Why don't private enterprises and Pinkies become blue chip companies? Look at the companies the last twenty five years or so that have gone from non-existent to huge multi-billion dollar companies and they all have a similar background.
Successful companies usually have solid funding, (virtually always a non-Pinksheet), very intelligent A type personalities and techie visionaries who have created unique products or services in a new industry, one the blue chips don't already dominate. Typically, no product or service is unique for very long and is soon replicated and copied by others, drastically reducing margins and the companies growth.
Recent successes Apple, Facebook, Ebay, Microsoft, Amazon and Yahoo for example all reached into new tech growth areas where IBM, Zerox and others had no footprint and hadn't conceived of the ideas.
If a company has a product or service that is truly unique in a new or high growth sector and is completely protected by patents and copyrights, they have a chance to have tremendous growth.
Where does KMAG fit in this and how successful can we be?
We seem to have adequate funding as there is no dilution the last year, only talk of a buyback.
Jeff Reid is obviously very bright and his intelligence is obvious, demonstrated by his his novel RFID ideas.
JR is very motivated IMO demonstrated by his get-er-done type of personality. I believe he was in the patent office immediately after he conceived his RFID ideas to get them protected through patents. He also has a broad base of international travel and contacts, particularly in China, a bonus in today's world.
He didn't create the RFID market, we are just one of many participants in the field. We are first to attack some niche areas, areas that JR has stated will generate 10's of millions of dollars annually. Jeff has positioned KMAG in a high-tech high growth sector that is just beginning its growth curve. KMAG isn't the 800 lb. gorilla of RFID and never will be. JR has already mentioned areas within RFID that will provide for a nice business. We have the strong possibility of getting a ten-bagger or perhaps a twenty or fifty or more from present levels. But, we will never be a blue chipper IMO and there is nothing wrong with that.
They used the word "extrapolated" in the PR meaning they took the flow over several hours during the day and mathematically figured what the flow would be over a 24 hour period.
200 BOPD to realize .20 share price imo.
200 x $100 per barrel = $20,000 per day gross
$20,000 per day gross X 360 = $7.2 mill per year gross
$7.2 mill per year / half = $3.6 mill per year net
$3.6 mill per year net / 280,000,000 shares = .013 cents per share net (current OS)
.013 cents per share times 15+ PE = .20 cents per share.
The chart looks like its just doing the turnaround to me. Leading indicators, Stochastics and RSI are still pretty cool. MACD is flat. Accum/distribution, CMF are down but the MFI money flow index started moving well the past several days. We took a huge hit last week and are just recovering. We are definitely working our way off the bottom. Anyone looking for "bargains" doesn't know what they're looking for, historically, this is a steal at these prices.
Yup, this one is just a little cupcake. We have some full fledged cakes waiting to get baked. The pressure numbers Mason released were very strong and should show great improvement once the drilling debris clears the line.
Agreed, nice upward projection. With another hurricane here or there or an earthquake or middle east conflict, who knows where we go. Unbelievably low for now.