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 were right about a "smart a$$ reply" but it's all just part of the CON/SCAM.
I've seen these same "GREAT" sounding code of ethics before from scams.
"Please tell me why you think this is it for USOG."
That is an easy question. THE SEC HALT!
And do you REALLY think the SEC halted USOG without a REASON???
You also keep harping on; "being up to date with their filings, 25 this year alone.
Did it ever occur to you that what is in those USOG filings may be the problem?
SEC Filings mean nothing if what's in them is false, misleading, inadequate, etc.
Don't forget the USOG PR'S and what they say in them. There's a thousand reasons
the SEC has for halting a stock.
By the way, how many pink sheet companies can you name that has came back from
a SEC halt. They may open on the grays at much lower prices and gradually fade into
the night. Sorry to be so blunt but I've seen this over and over on these pinkies. GLTY
Here is some good info for BCME shareholders. This investor bulletin fits BCME perfectly.
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-123.htm
"Little do they know what we know"
What I do know is a scam when I see it! Little do those who buy BCME shares know!
That's what I mean!
"You guys are very entertaining - but that's all."
Thank You!
BCME PR'S were what was entertaining but until they
put out some more entertaining PR'S, we can't entertain
you anymore. So for now, "that's all".
Well, Whoopty Dooo right back to you to, want a lollipop or something?
The post I was referring to was your post 31135 where you state: "You left the part in bold out to be fair." and the bold part was: " stock promoting activity by the company" which was a reply to another poster but you replied to me in 31135 saying "You left the part in bold out to be fair. These activities were not done by the company, they were done by 3rd parties."
I replied in 31137; "To be "fair", my first line of that post was; "USOG was not shut down JUST because of "3rd party promoters." I then gave the reasons right from the SEC documents.
You also say; " NOT ALL of these charges apply to all the companies"
Where in these 2 SEC documents does it say; "NOT ALL of these charges apply to all the companies"
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2011/34-64612-o.pdf
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2011/34-64612.pdf
In one the SEC charges; "Questions concerning the adequacy and accuracy of USOG press releases concerning the company’s operations" and in the other SEC document it says; "because of questions regarding the adequacy and accuracy of information about the companies, including their assets, business operations, current financial condition and/or issuances of shares in company stock."
As for ; "NOT TRYING TO BE CONFRONTATIONAL " I was not trying to be confrontational either. Just trying to post what the SEC said was the reason for the USOG halt but then look who's yelling by typing in caps!
100 Pips, you stated; "You left the part in bold out to be fair."
To be "fair", my first line of that post was; "USOG was not shut down just because of "3rd party promoters. The main reasons are below."
I also gave a link to all the USOG SEC info which you did not in your USOG post that I was responding to which was; "I believe USOG will come out of this cleared it is the 3rd party promoters that should be investigated if any wrong doing was done.
I feel USOG pps will recover given time. The games the MM's have played has bought the pps down imo.
Alex has been very transparent and we shouldn't be so fast to give up on USOG because of a bump or two in the road, it will smooth out and we will get our money back plus profits. The notes will probably be paid by year end and we will rock again. imo"
To be "fair" you seemed to have left off these SEC charges; "Questions concerning the adequacy and accuracy of USOG press releases concerning the company’s operations" and "because of questions regarding the adequacy and accuracy of information about the companies, including their assets, business operations, current financial condition and/or issuances of shares in company stock."
For those USOG investors with questions about the SEC suspensions go here;
http://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/tradingsuspensions.pdf
USOG was not shut down just because of "3rd party promoters". The main reasons are below.
The SEC charges included "Questions concerning the adequacy and accuracy of USOG press releases concerning the company’s operations" here:
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2011/34-64612-o.pdf
Also see this SEC document that says USOG was halted, "because of questions regarding the adequacy and accuracy of information about the companies, including their assets, business operations, current financial condition and/or issuances of shares in company stock."
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2011/34-64612.pdf
"All of the recent stock promoting were from outside sources, not USOG Management"
Here is a good article about how "Stock Promotions" are done/work.
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/823109-variant-view-research/128543-willow-creek-enterprises-a-classic-stock-promotion
"All of the recent stock promoting were from outside sources, not USOG Management."
What about this part of the SEC complaint; "Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and accuracy of press releases concerning the company’s operations"
USOG Management is responsible for what is in their press releases.
The SEC didn't halt USOG and the 16 others with it without good cause.
I'm sorry but USOG is toast IMO!
"I don't believe USOG Management is guilty of any wrong-doing, just guilty by association."
Well here is why the SEC halted USOG and it sounds like a management problem to me.
17. United States Oil & Gas Corporation is a Delaware corporation based in Texas. Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and accuracy of press releases concerning the company’s operations and stock promoting activity by the company.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2011/34-64612-o.pdf
The SEC halted an oil and gas company today that had a much better looking future and seemed to be more legit than BCME, along with audited financials etc., so what chance does BCME have against the SEC?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=9642
I'm waiting for BCME to be on this list since all these were halted for; "Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and accuracy of press releases concerning the company’s revenues."
which BCME is also guilty of.
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-120.htm
I saw a BCME pump which started around the first of 2011. This board had less than 100 posts for all of 2010.
Then from 1/1/2011 to 3/31/2011, BCME had 275 posts, and then starting on 4/1/2011 to 4/30/2011 BCME had
785 posts for a 4 month total of 1060 posts. On 4/28/2011 we had almost as many posts as all of 2010.
Looks like a pump to me!
"Assume the above isn't true"
I couldn't agree more!
"To calculate probabilities of anything, you need facts."
That's the most truthful statement I've seen from you. It's just to bad BCME doesn't give us any reliable FACTS. But then if they gave us the REAL FACTS, BCME would be at .0001.
BCME does give us these facts though, and the part I like best is at the bottom. They don't sound to sure of themselves. lol
Forward-looking Statements
Certain statements contained herein are forward-looking statements, including statements relating to BCM Energy Partners, Inc. (BCME) operations; business prospects, expansion plans and strategies. Forward-looking information typically contains statements with words such as “intends,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “approximate,” “expect,” “potential,” “could,” “plan,” or similar words suggesting future outcomes. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on foward-looking information because it is possible that expectations, predictions, forecasts, projections and other forms of forward-looking information will not be achieved by BCME. By its nature, forward-looking information involves numerous assumptions, inherent risks and uncertainties. A change in any one of these factors could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking information. Although BCME believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, BCME can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct.
"hopefully there will be proof of BCME's legitimacy posted with verifiable links."
Good luck with that because if BCME Management wants the marketplace and investors to take them seriously, then they shouldn't be on the Pink Sheets, since the vast majority of pink sheet companies really are scams and in most experienced investors minds a pink sheet traded company is automatically guilty by association. However, even if we give BMCE the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe they are for "real", the management should be even more transparent than the "big boards" in order to counteract the prevailing opinion. However, they are not.
Instead they are OTC Pink with Limited info which is designed for companies with financial reporting problems, economic distress, or in bankruptcy to make the limited information they have publicly available.
The Limited Information category also includes companies that may not be troubled, but are unwilling to meet OTC Markets Group's Guidelines for Providing Adequate Current Information. Companies in this category have limited financial information not older than six months available on the OTC Disclosure and News Service or have made a filing on the SEC's EDGAR system in the previous six months.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/BCME/quote
In this day and age, there is no legitimate reason for any public company to be non-reporting to the SEC. (or at the very least current with Pink Sheets) It doesn't cost much for a small company to report. I guarantee they pay their transfer agents many times more in annual fees to handle their billions of shares and new share issuances than they would ever pay in reporting costs. And I know they pay PR firms and pumpers many times more money to "promote" their stock than it would cost to be fully reporting. But NO, BCME chose’s to be non-sec reporting (or current with PS) for a reason, and that reason is darkness. They want to be able to conduct business in secret and deceive and fool "investors". Many use this darkness to pump their shares with phony PR's while issuing millions of shares, none of which they report to anyone publicly.
Then, when none of their PR's ever come true, they will just move on and do it again. And again. And again. In pinkie land, it isn't making a "mistake". Its a pattern of deceptive business, which is all too common with these pink sheet players like BCME. As long as they can find a new crop of gullible "investors" to buy their promotions, they will continue to do it over and over again. You should pay close attention to the history of each and every person involved with BCME, as their history is a very good indicator of current and future actions.
And then you have Pink Sheets own assessment of BCME by putting them in their, "OTC Pink with Limited information and a YIELD sign" which is there next to lowest category along with their explanation below. BUT! BCME is a GREAT company! LOL
http://www.otcmarkets.com/companies-advisors/otc-pink-limited
OTC Pink Limited
Designed for companies with financial reporting problems, economic distress, or in bankruptcy to make the limited information they have publicly available.
The Limited Information category also includes companies that may not be troubled, but are unwilling to meet OTC Markets Group's Guidelines for Providing Adequate Current Information. Companies in this category have limited financial information not older than six months available on the OTC Disclosure and News Service or have made a filing on the SEC's EDGAR system in the previous six months.
So you're agreeing with me that BCME has a 99% chance of being a scam since you didn't dispute that fact! Thank you!
"But now since BCME is a Pink Sheet company with very limited information, and those who are involved with BCME behind the scenes that were with AEOH behind the scenes, the chances of BCME being a scam are 99% imo."
"Can you prove BCME is a scam"
Well of course nobody can claim with 100% certainty that BCME is a scam no more than you can claim
with 100% certainty that you will be alive in the next 5 min.
But now since BCME is a Pink Sheet company with very limited information, and those who are involved with BCME behind the scenes that were with AEOH behind the scenes, the chances of BCME being a scam are 99% imo.
Here is what Pink Sheets has for the category that BCME is in; "OTC Pink Limited Information"
http://www.otcmarkets.com/companies-advisors/otc-pink-limited
OTC Pink Limited
Designed for companies with financial reporting problems, economic distress, or in bankruptcy to make the limited information they have publicly available.
The Limited Information category also includes companies that may not be troubled, but are unwilling to meet OTC Markets Group's Guidelines for Providing Adequate Current Information. Companies in this category have limited financial information not older than six months available on the OTC Disclosure and News Service or have made a filing on the SEC's EDGAR system in the previous six months.
If BCME Management wants the marketplace and investors to take them seriously, then they shouldn't be on the Pink Sheets, since the vast majority of pink sheet companies really are scams and in most experienced investors minds a pink sheet traded company is automatically guilty by association. However, even if we give BMCE the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe they are for "real", the management should be even more transparent than the "big boards" in order to counteract the prevailing opinion. However, they are not.
Instead they are OTC Pink with Limited info which is designed for companies with financial reporting problems, economic distress, or in bankruptcy to make the limited information they have publicly available.
The Limited Information category also includes companies that may not be troubled, but are unwilling to meet OTC Markets Group's Guidelines for Providing Adequate Current Information. Companies in this category have limited financial information not older than six months available on the OTC Disclosure and News Service or have made a filing on the SEC's EDGAR system in the previous six months.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/BCME/quote
In this day and age, there is no legitimate reason for any public company to be non-reporting to the SEC. (or at the very least current with Pink Sheets) It doesn't cost much for a small company to report. I guarantee they pay their transfer agents many times more in annual fees to handle their billions of shares and new share issuances than they would ever pay in reporting costs. And I know they pay PR firms and pumpers many times more money to "promote" their stock than it would cost to be fully reporting. But NO, BCME chose’s to be non-sec reporting (or current with PS) for a reason, and that reason is darkness. They want to be able to conduct business in secret and deceive and fool "investors". Many use this darkness to pump their shares with phony PR's while issuing millions of shares, none of which they report to anyone publicly.
Then, when none of their PR's ever come true, they will just move on and do it again. And again. And again. In pinkie land, it isn't making a "mistake". Its a pattern of deceptive business, which is all too common with these pink sheet players like BCME. As long as they can find a new crop of gullible "investors" to buy their promotions, they will continue to do it over and over again. You should pay close attention to the history of each and every person involved with BCME, as their history is a very good indicator of current and future actions.
BCME investors need to read that Stocktamer disclaimer like this part; "The Information is presented only as a brief “snapshot” of the Profiled Company and should only be used, at most, and if at all, as a starting point for Readers to conduct a thorough investigation of the Profiled Company and its securities."
Very true! BCME investors had better take stocktamers advice and "NOT use BCME'S information AT ALL as a starting point for Readers to conduct a thorough investigation of BCME" before buying!
And the VERY WORST place to do DD is on the BCME web site! Get INDEPENDENT info from other sources! If there is none available, RUN!
"False accusations about any awareness programs that BCME currently have are inappropriate for this board. Please post relevant facts only. Thanks and good luck."
Well stocktamer has this for BCME; "BCME – $10,000 for Awareness Campaign – Non-affiliate third party shareholder."
Now there are those here who say BCME didn't pay him but that some third party shareholders did.
So until I have proof of, and know exactly who paid for it, those helping stocktamer are suspect.
"you didnt tell me about teh FINE PRINT? why not? I'll wait!"
pitts77h Already answered you; http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=63285078
BCME – $10,000 for Awareness Campaign – Non-affiliate third party shareholder.
http://stocktamer.com/disclaimer/
"Because we receive compensation for our dissemination of the Information (as disclosed below), predominately in the form of common stock shares (the “Shares”), our publicly disseminated publications should not be regarded in any manner whatsoever as independent; rather, there is an inherent conflict of interest since in connection with the actual publishing of the Information, we receive securities compensation promoting the issuers and their securities that we are promoting and selling such securities during the publications or shortly thereafter or at anytime, wherein we may favor our own interests over our readers’ interests...
"We always receive compensation from the third party shareholders in cash and/or compensation in the Securities in connection with preparation and dissemination of the Information, most frequently in the form of Securities in the name of the Profiled Companies. We regularly and routinely sell the Securities before, during and after its dissemination of the Information, most frequently during the dissemination of the Information. You should be acutely aware that we repeatedly sell the Securities while we are engaged (and most often so engaged) in the dissemination of the Information, as well as before and after such dissemination. Many such securities sales occur during the dissemination of the Information often within minutes, hours or days after we first disseminate the Information to the Readers. Our dissemination of the Information has resulted in the past and will in the future result in increases in the Profiled Company’s securities trading volume, enabling us to sell the Securities at a profit. Additionally, because we sell the Profiled Company’s securities concurrently with the dissemination of the Information, we may be able to sell at a higher price, which may result in a diminished value to those buying the Profiled Company’s securities."
"I dont know who paid, It says a shareholder third party"
And someone just gave stocktamer 10 g's, or 10 g's worth of BCME stock out of the goodness of their heart! One way or another it came from BCME!
"STOCKTAMER didnt pump anything"
How about stocktamers post # 1349,"Judging by the trading today I think BCME breaks $1 tomorrow"
along with 20 other BCME posts he made in just a few days, then left. He also got all his mod buddies to join in. Why did they all stop posting? They get PAID to post!
Juan, are you referring to this question about BCME?
"why would the "insiders" be selling for mere $4,000, when they can pump and run teh stock to many dollars and sell for $40,000?"
Where have you been? BCME just paid Stocktamer $10,000 a few weeks ago to PUMP BCME which he and his helpers did for several weeks. Guess what! It failed! If BCME had something REAL, what they claim, they would be in the dollars. But you forget 1 thing. BCME is a scam!
Question now answered!
Well if you would stick to what BCME has about Mr Bailey, instead of going to the "Powered Corp" scam site, you might do better. And if you "wanna make money" buy a real stock.
Juan, where did you get this BCME/DR. RAYMOND G. BAILEY info from.
The "Colombia Pacific University" part is wrong along with the spelling of "Colombia".
It's "Columbia Pacific" spelled with an o, not a u, and no "University" on the end.
I think that post you quote; (http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=63132938 ) may have been doctored because right from BCME'S own web site (See below) it says: Columbia Pacific, NOT "Colombia Pacific University". Also note the BCME rendering has columbia spelled colombia using an o instead of a u.
I can't even find a "Colombia Pacific University", not even on Wiki, but they do list a "Columbia Pacific University" .
This is typical for PS scams to misspell a name, etc.
http://www.bcmenergy.com/management
Management
Dr. Raymond G. (Jerry) Bailey P.E.
Chairman & CEO
Dr. Bailey was the former President of Exxon, Arabian Gulf and has over 45 years of experience in both
upstream and downstream elements of the petroleum industry in particular the U.S.A. Gulf Coast, onshore
and offshore, the Middle East and North Africa and the Caribbean. He has extensive supervisory and
management experience and received a BS degree in Chemical Engineering from University of Houston
and an MS from the New Jersey Institute of Technology and a PhD in Engineering from Columbia Pacific.
"I'm not sure what a 2007 SEC filing for Power Corp has to do with BCME although it did show 30 million of debt."
BCME'S Raymond Bailey was an advisor for PC. I've seen this before and I think it was a scam also.
He was involved with some shady people at PC. See the story here;
http://emptyquarter.wordpress.com/2007/10/06/yemen-observer-questions-powered-nuclear-deal-alghanis-character/
"And it is a known fact that BCME has had an ongoing paid promotion on message boards..........So? What is the problem? BCME isnt paying for it, are they?"
OK Im-Smart-Juan, who paid for the stocktamer BCME promotion? There's no such thing as a FREE lunch! One way or another BCME is paying for it!
BCME investors need to read that Stocktamer disclaimer like this part; "The Information is presented only as a brief “snapshot” of the Profiled Company and should only be used, at most, and if at all, as a starting point for Readers to conduct a thorough investigation of the Profiled Company and its securities."
Very true! BCME investors had better take stocktamers advice and "NOT use BCME'S information AT ALL as a starting point for Readers to conduct a thorough investigation of BCME" before buying!
And the VERY WORST place to do DD is on the BCME web site! Get INDEPENDENT info from other sources! If there is none available, RUN!
If BCME Management wants the marketplace and investors to take them seriously, then they shouldn't be on the Pink Sheets, since the vast majority of pink sheet companies really are scams and in most experienced investors minds a pink sheet traded company is automatically guilty by association. However, even if we give BMCE the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe they are for "real", the management should be even more transparent than the "big boards" in order to counteract the prevailing opinion. However, they are not.
Instead they are OTC Pink with Limited info which is designed for companies with financial reporting problems, economic distress, or in bankruptcy to make the limited information they have publicly available.
The Limited Information category also includes companies that may not be troubled, but are unwilling to meet OTC Markets Group's Guidelines for Providing Adequate Current Information. Companies in this category have limited financial information not older than six months available on the OTC Disclosure and News Service or have made a filing on the SEC's EDGAR system in the previous six months.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/BCME/quote
In this day and age, there is no legitimate reason for any public company to be non-reporting to the SEC. (or at the very least current with Pink Sheets) It doesn't cost much for a small company to report. I guarantee they pay their transfer agents many times more in annual fees to handle their billions of shares and new share issuances than they would ever pay in reporting costs. And I know they pay PR firms and pumpers many times more money to "promote" their stock than it would cost to be fully reporting. But NO, BCME chose’s to be non-sec reporting (or current with PS) for a reason, and that reason is darkness. They want to be able to conduct business in secret and deceive and fool "investors". Many use this darkness to pump their shares with phony PR's while issuing millions of shares, none of which they report to anyone publicly.
Then, when none of their PR's ever come true, they will just move on and do it again. And again. And again. In pinkie land, it isn't making a "mistake". Its a pattern of deceptive business, which is all too common with these pink sheet players like BCME. As long as they can find a new crop of gullible "investors" to buy their promotions, they will continue to do it over and over again. You should pay close attention to the history of each and every person involved with BCME, as their history is a very good indicator of current and future actions.
I've been telling you! BCME!
"The shares are in tight hands it appears."
They aren't in "tight hands", it's just that nobody wants this SCAM!
In addition to my last post I would say that it's not what BCME says so much but what screams out at me is WHAT THEY DON"T SAY that they should be saying.
Remember, the Devil is always in the Details, those LITTLE things they don't mention.
If it doesn't MATTER either way, then why make these far out predictions that never materialize!
BCME has owned this oil field since July 2010 and has not posted or filed any monthly/quarterly financials or production, only debt!
And yes, I know they stated in a recent PR about that "University Field produced 992 barrels of oil and sold 1,153 barrels of oil for March 2011" but why didn't they say BCME produced and sold those amounts since BCME'S only "claimed" producers are 2 wells for the University Field.
Also , what about all the other months before March. They do state that they only buy fields with "proven reserves associated with producing wells."