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.
Sorry DM but you are taking message board posts as being 'fact' when nothing official has been stated regarding a 'failure' of the Hawk demonstration system. Do you have verified information that a failure has occured?
If unverified, this could be very misleading to investors. KP
Or Maybe Pringle is a 'heavyweight' who attracted another 'heavyweight' (Kimberly) to replace the local 'drunk' he had been working with. Take your pick! I don't think you know any more than anyone else about what is transpiring, so cut the innuendo.
IMO you're re-posting people's statements from other boards (totally out of context) to further a personal agenda. KP
"Who knows -- Hawk said he was working as a consultant, not an employee. Maybe GBRC was concerned that Hawk had too much insight into the technical and intellectual property deficiencies of GBRC and could become a future competitor (which he now obviously is) so they decided to cut their losses. Pringle does appear to be a lightweight, which can make it difficult to attract quality personnel".
It appears GBRC's patent pending technologies are viewed by Hawk Hogan as being too expensive and will take too long to accomplish. His idea is to produce something better, quicker, and cheaper. Supposedly he doesn't intend to replicate the GBRC technology in any way. Not sure what to make of all this. KP
"The trading suspensions will last for 10 business days. The trading suspensions commenced today at 9:30 a.m. ET and terminate at 11:59 p.m. ET on March 27, 2008."
Press release from the web site regarding Hawk:
http://www.globalresourcecorp.com/Recent%20Press_files/3-20-08.pdf?custno=1574
Thanks fogg - what was the date of the reply from Fox to your 10/17/07 email? kp
woodrow - I Googled the Twichell Corp/Ichargeit information as you suggested but I'm confused. Are you saying that some of these people were indicted for their participation in Ichargeit and are now connected in some way with FSNR? KP
"they were listed as a consultant to freestone resources inc in one of the filings of ichargeit, as was sherrie carter Vic Mccall and janice nicols the last two have been indicted. you can find it by doing a google on twitchell corp and freestone.
You can also see where Twitchell gets a check on the Carroll unit as a registered interest holder. Maybe thats why the accounting is held up?"
Fogg - not having seen the document, I'm not in a position to advise on posting it. What was the date you received it?
With the investigation to the point of halting trading on 26 companies, I'm sure most of the agents are in the open anyway. It would be nice to know the facts, but I'm not sure that would help any of us as it's out of our hands and we couldn't dump our shares if we wanted to. KP
"Perhaps I'll post this missing email now.....what do you think? It contains named agents.....I dunno, it's one thing to receive such information in a private communication, and another to post it on a public board."
Exactly Woodrow! Until their claims are verified and legally filed, it appeared to me to be deception too. Nothing has been filed to date with the SEC to ensure FSNR shareholders that they own 'anything'. All the discussion about lab results, down hole test results, two producing wells, huge potential, etc. are meaningless if shareholders don't wind up with a legal right to any of it.
All PRs include the standard safe harbor statement allowing management to change their minds on 'anything' without repercussion if they later claim it was in the best interest of their shareholders to do so.
I decided to keep my money 'in my hands' and not theirs until this is cleared up. KP
SAFE HARBOR STATEMENTS: Certain statements in this news release may contain forward-looking information within the meaning of Rule 175 under the Securities Act of 1933 and Rule 3b-6 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and are subject to the safe harbor created by those rules. All statements, other than statements of fact, included in this release, including, without limitation, statements regarding potential future plans and objectives of the company, are forward-looking statements that involve 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.
Trucking Industry Moves From Proprietary Hardware to Open-Systems Approach
By Dan Leone, Staff Reporter
This story appears in the March 17 print edition of Transport Topics.
Historically, trucking companies have relied on information technology systems — both in the cab and in the office — that run proprietary software on proprietary hardware, effectively making it impossible for one manufacturer’s system to access data gathered by another service.
Today, many trucking technology providers — such as San Diego’s Qualcomm Inc., a one-time champion of proprietary information systems — are embracing the move to an open environment.
“Historically, [Qualcomm] and many other [companies] have had proprietary systems that we’ve built through the years, and while they were quite successful, what they didn’t allow us to do was to interoperate with other devices,” said Norm Ellis, the company’s vice president and general manager of transportation and logistics.
Broadly, an “open-systems” IT model refers to computer systems, peripherals and software that offer some degree of interoperability with other systems — potentially even those made by competing manufacturers.
In language more specific to trucking, the technology allows dispatchers to funnel vehicle data, such as fuel efficiency or hard-braking events, into a single dispatch software application — even if not all of a fleet’s trucks are using the same onboard hardware systems.
Today, Qualcomm’s systems interface with more than 30 software and application providers, allowing fleet customers access to fuel-tax reporting, in-cab navigation, and back-office management software created by third-party developers.
“We’re always looking for new partners,” said Michael Hein, Qualcomm’s director of technical support, at a breakout session on data inte-gration held during the company’s 2008 user conference last month in an Diego.
“If you’re doing business with someone, and they’re not integrated with us yet, tell them to give us a call,” Hein said.
Qualcomm’s competitors in the mobile communications field are just as quick to point out the importance of the open-systems model.
“You’ve got to be able to integrate,” said Jim Griffin, vice president of research and development for XATA Corp. “You can’t be everything to all people.”
XATA, based in Minneapolis, has been in the trucking technology business since the mid-1980s. Like Qualcomm, the company’s initial offerings consisted of truck-mounted proprietary telematics boxes that gathered operational data and made it available only on XATA’s own software applications.
But in recent years, “the maturity of the hardware and the demands of the system have driven us more toward an open architecture ap-proach,” Griffin said.
Griffin explained that open-systems models hinge on the availability of application programming interfaces — “APIs” in industry jargon.
A software developer in possession of the API for a certain computer operating system can write an application that will be capable of communicating with that operating system.
In practical terms, the free availability of APIs allows a software developer to write, for example, a fuel-tax-reporting program that automatically can fill in fuel-tax forms using data gathered by a truck’s mobile communications unit.
From a driver’s point of view, the proliferation of the open-systems model among technology providers means fewer devices on the dashboard and, consequently, fewer distractions while driving.
Griffin said the increasing abundance of interoperable devices and systems means “customers are beginning to ask, ‘Why do I need two radio systems or two data plans? Why do I need the driver to interface with two devices?’ ”
Likewise, the marketing chief at PeopleNet, a Chaska, Minn., mo-bile communications provider, noted the importance of keeping onboard computers accessible to third-party developers.
“It’s important that you have that flexibility in your systems, so third parties can put software on your device,” said Glenn Williams, PeopleNet’s director of marketing.
PeopleNet’s flagship BLU system supports offerings from a number of outside technology vendors, including mapping and routing software from Princeton, N.J.-based ALK Technologies and navigation software from Maptuit Corp.
“As PeopleNet moves forward, we’re partnering with more and more third-party vendors,” Wil-liams said.
While the increasing proliferation of open-systems models allows in-cab hardware and onboard data-collection systems to integrate more seamlessly, some of the most extensive interfacing occurs with back-office software programs.
“Back in the IT shop [at the home office], there’s been a little bit more compatibility or interoperability with the core systems even than there has taken place with the cab of the truck,” said Tom McLeod, president of Mc-Leod Software, which is based in Birmingham, Ala.
McLeod said this was because office computers are almost always more robust in their capabilities than systems used onboard a truck.
McLeod’s flagship application, LoadMaster, was written in a programming language called Java, which McLeod said is crucial to the application’s ability to interface with so many third-party vendors.
LoadMaster provides a trucking company’s office personnel with automated dispatch, operations and accounting functions.
In particular, the Java language allows McLeod’s software products to function on operating systems widely used by trucking companies for IT applications, including Microsoft’s Windows, IBM’s AS/400 and Unix. Moreover, the Java language is supported by several major database systems, including Microsoft’s SQL and Oracle Corp.’s Oracle system.
A database system is where information collected by telematics boxes and onboard computers is stored. Software applications must be compatible with a particular database in order to retrieve the information stored there.
McLeod said LoadMaster integrates with approximately eight mobile communications providers, including Qualcomm, PeopleNet and GeoLogic — which recently was acquired by XATA.
LoadMaster also interfaces with trailer-tracking systems from competing vendors Qualcomm, GE Trailer Fleet Services, Trans-core and SkyBitz, allowing fleet managers using any of those platforms for asset tracking to view trailer location data through McLeod’s software.
Roni Taylor, an executive vice president with SkyBitz, offered an example: “If a customer has PeopleNet in the cab and SkyBitz on the trailer, they can see all the data in their McLeod system, and they don’t have to go to PeopleNet or SkyBitz on the Web.”
Taylor said SkyBitz, Sterling, Va., has installed its trailer-tracking systems on about 150,000 trailers across 500 U.S. trucking fleets.
Software providers that want to make use of the data gathered by SkyBitz’s tracking systems can do so thanks to the XML-based feed the company provides.
XML — extensible markup language — is used by IT developers to create “markup languages,” which describe how the contents of a virtual document should appear to an end user. Because any developer can make use of XML freely, and because the XML documents can be easily transmitted via the Internet, the standard is useful for sharing data between different IT systems.
“The market is definitely going towards more and more integration,” Taylor said.
fogg - It no longer seems so amazing that you got an instant response from Fox. This investigation was obviously underway for a long time. Hope they hang these bastards! KP
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=23775056
If this is all true, then why hasn't the company published this information to it's shareholders and not to just one 'knowitall'. Why do FSNR shareholders not know who 'owns' these wells and has the results of these 'tests'? Why is this information being posted on a message board by you as 'innuendo' of success? An announcement from the company containing third party verification of these tests would produce 'real success' and the share price would take care of itself IMO.
"I actually know of 10 wells that went from .25 to 3-7 barrels a day of steady production."
"in the PR's the company has stated that it has worked in over 200 wells."
Could you please point out to me where the company has stated in any PR's that Petrozene has 'worked' in over 200 wells.
FSNR does not own any wells so all of these wells being tested must be owned by others. One would think that all of these well owners would have a financial interest in having Petrozene work. The company has yet to disclose (in any PR's) verification that it has indeed 'worked'. My DD indicated no current test verifications and therefore I chose to liquidate my position until there are results. Don't you think it strange that the company releases the results of 'Lab' tests and not any actual field test results?
It's not the responsibility of posters or investors to 'prove' that it does not work in the field.
man alive - Inside lab results and down hole field applications are 2 different worlds. My DD indicated Petrozene had not worked in their down hole heavy oil tests. They did not published those unflattering test results? I liquidated.
For me, It doesn't matter how many 'carbonators' are turning this stuff out if it doesn't work in down hole applications. It may be 'ok' as a degreaser and for sludge disolving, but that is a different marketing opportunity than having a miracle cure for stripper wells. JMHO
When they publish third party verifiable 'down hole' test results, I may buy back in. lol
GLTA
"A lot of hype but the grit is hidden.."
In light of your news, research and potential for Petrozene, I have dumped the 40,000 shares I owned. My DD indicated the likelihood of making money from investing in this pos scam were about the same as a comet hitting the earth...JMPO
Any investor who would like to share my DD privately may PM me. Please include your email address as I do not have PM privileges on IHUB.
Sorry jc! I should have said 'relevant' lab test results. My apology!
'Suggested' by a poster!
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27530229
Contractor - If NRRI were to go belly up as suggested on this board, would it not be logical that all disrtibution contracts would be voided, and the patents and production capability would be sold off by the BC trustee?
" Furthermore, based on real and tangible information and belief, I do not believe Natural Resource Recovery, Inc. will be in business for much longer.
Isn't it 'fraud' for directors, officers or compensated advisors to hide behind aliases and personally post on message boards like this in an effort to promote the sale of shares in their publicly traded company? If they have a useful and revolutionary new product, isn't their time better spent promoting 'the product' rather than the stock? If the product is real, the share price will take care of itself.
I never said anything about the 'filings' being false statements. KP
"A simple phone call to a director of the company. Yes I own stock in this company. Yes your statements that FSNR's filings and press releases are false statements is a public statement that this company is committing fraud and is an intentional Tort."
Are you telling me that 'directors' of this public company are giving out information to posters on this board which has not been released to the public yet? Good god, I don't believe this!
"A simple phone call to a director of the company. Yes I own stock in this company. Yes your statements that FSNR's filings and press releases are false statements is a public statement that this company is committing fraud and is an intentional Tort."
rusty - where did 'the company' state all of this? It seems I missed a very important PR somewhere. I've seen hints of this from posters on this board but surely they are not 'the company' are they? Are you 'the company' also? KP
"The company stated their accountants sent the accounting and work sheets to the Auditors last friday.
The lab results will be out next week from the independent labs
Petrozene has been used on numerous wells all with positive results except for a couple that did not fit the mode.
A brokerage firm has agreed to file the listing for FSNR and FSNR has has a legal firm to make the filing"
I need to have a lot of confidence in the 'people' running the companies I invest in. My experience in VC tells me that is far more important than fancy 'tech'. I see more red flags here every day when it comes to management. GLTU
IMO the only way anyone will likely ever make any money on this company would be to somehow harness and market the huge untapped source of natural gas beneath all these PR's and web site Bios.
IMO:
There will never be audited financials
There will never be lab test results
There will never be increased production due to Petrozene
There will never be uplisting
There will be a lot more promises and delays.
"As far as the DBA, the change of ownership from the DBA to Freestone Resources Inc. is an accounting function. To my knowledge the accountants were in the office working to show this change to the auditors. The auditors will exchange notes with the accountants and then all will be filed for all to see. I am sorry this is so hard for some to comprehend. If you have limited knowledge of accounting or have never actually run a company, that explains all".
Sorry to dissapoint you stocky1, but I have extensive experience in accounting from many years running Silicon Valley companies and anyone would have to be real fool not to recognize this as total nonsense.
The only way anyone will ever make any money on this company would be to somehow harness and market the huge untapped source of natural gas beneath all these PR's and web site BS.
IMO:
There will never be audited financials
There will never be lab test results
There will never be increased production due to Petrozene
There will never be uplisting
There will be lots of promises and delays.
"As far as the DBA, the change of ownership from the DBA to Freestone Resources Inc. is an accounting function. To my knowledge the accountants were in the office working to show this change to the auditors. The auditors will exchange notes with the accountants and then all will be filed for all to see. I am sorry this is so hard for some to comprehend. If you have limited knowledge of accounting or have never actually run a company, that explains all".
contractor - You are obviously much better at turning over rocks than I am. Nothing much to showcase any past management skills however. Thanks! KP
Can you say for certain that you were actually talking to Loyd Lane?
I had researched everything on the web site, thank you, and Both 3L service Inc. and VTI Pipeline Inc. are not traceable. I could find no indication they ever existed. There is no background information on education, training, or anything else for our CEO?
Could you please supply any relevant info you may have? Thanks KP
Sorry but my experience indicates that PR's mostly reflect BS and innuendo, not fact - you should know that.
Nothing released in a PR so far reflects the fact that Freestone Resources Inc owns or operates any wells - only that there is a CARROLL UNIT, Lease No: 03851 and a Byrd A1 well in operation by a DBA with a similar, but different name.
Our CEO released a PR on 11/2/07 PR (4 months ago) in which he said:
"To date, Lloyd Lane DBA Freestone Resources has assigned all assets to Freestone Resources, Inc. the public company. These assets consist of the Carroll Unit #1, a 525 acre lease in Freestone County with one producing well, the Byrd lease, an 80 acre lease in Mitchell County with one producing well and a contract with Near Bore Resources, L.P., to purchase up to 50% of all chemical made by Near Bore resources, L.P., called Petrozene."
To me 'to date' means as of 11/02/07. Why is the Bryd A1 being reopened 4 months later (in 2008) on a lease asset that was assigned to Freestone Resources Inc in November by what still appears to be the the old DBA? KP
You did not answer my question stocky1. That PR had nothing to do with my question, so here it is again:
Your post:
"Everything is owned by Freestone Resources, Inc. The auditors should be finished in 2-3 weeks and all your questions will be revealed at that time. Patience my good friend..."
My question:
And who the H are you to make such a statement? Is this an opinion or fact. If it's an opinion then it should be followed by a IMO. If it's a fact, then I would like to know how you are qualified to make such a statement. kp
"Thou shalt not believe what the CEO sayest. Penny CEO's are the missing link between man and hyenna, and thou lookest like fresh meat." -stocklobster
Where has our CEO filed anything that shows Freestone Resources INC, the public company, owns or operates any oil wells?
We have LLoyd Lane DBA as Freestone Resources.
We have Freestone Oil and gas.
We have shareholders that own stock in a public company called Freestone Resources Inc. that our CEO states in a PR owns everything, yet there are no public filings or other verification of it.
Our CEO does not take phone calls? There is no picture of him or traceable history on the FSRN web site.
Our CEO announced on 11/2/07:
"Freestone Oil and Gas originally was to be a Company in which all lease and production assets would be held. By advisement of our accountant and due to a lengthy audit, Lloyd Lane DBA Freestone Resources held these assets instead. Placing the assets in Freestone Oil and Gas would have complicated the audit more."
Our CEO announced on 2/19/08:
"Finally, the Freestone accountants will be in office this week in order to bring the company's filings up to date for the Auditors. This moves Freestone one step closer to becoming a full reporting company, and will allow the completion of asset allocation to Freestone Resources from Freestone Oil and Gas, as previously discussed."
I'm hopeful that I own some of the 'huge' potential of Petrozene, but am beginning to wonder if all I own is a piece of a 'huge' pinky scam. JMHO
KP
fish - are these numbers recent and 'official' from the transfer agent?
Looks good! Were you able to attend the reopening of the well? KP
Waverider - do you think that adding the nanotech 'dust' you mentioned before has delayed the release of the lab test news. Will they have to do additional testing with that stuff added? KP
contractor - in layman (shareholder) terms, what is all this telling me?? KP
You can PM me if you prefer.
4kids - here is an interesting re-read from July. The original Argo deal in July was between ECN and Argo and could well have been for 10 million restricted shares 'at that time'. It may have then changed in Oct (after the Bio-Cog legal problems and pps drop) to 24 million unrestricted, and subseqently cancelled altogether in Dec. ???
I view the whole move away from hardware as a positive thing. JMHO
Thanks Fish, but my point was that shouldn't that well have been changed over to being operated by 'Freestone Resources' by Jan 2008? I guess the upcoming 10-Q will explain all that. KP
At this time revenue from these assets has been used to pay for the marketing of Petrozene, office, fuel, and travel expenses, etc. Freestone Resources at this time has not paid a salary to any Director or Officer. As for the statement made in a Press Release 1/18/2007 pertaining to Freestone Oil and Gas showing profit by first quarter 2007, these numbers will show on Freestone Resources Inc.'s fourth quarter 10-Q, 2007, from the assets mentioned henceforth. In this same Press Release we stated we hoped to be in the black with Petrozene chemical sales by third quarter 2007. Our current Accounts Receivable show that we are.
kondo - very possible they recinded the Argo deal in Dec. IMO.
The company cancelled 24,000,000 shares of common stock on december 21, 2007
Outstanding shares, after the cancellation will be 80,634,552
Public Float = 42,296,157
Authorized shares remain 150,000,000 with no changes.
The Company is currently closing on a capital raise of $4,590,000 (Rule 144)
consisiting of 27,000,000 restricted shares at $0.17 a share
Outstanding shares, after the issuance of the 27,000,000 shares in
conjunction with the capital raise will be 107,634,552.
contractor - does this mean that ownership of this well was not in the hands of FSNR shareholders at the end of 2007?
KP
contractor - I recall you posted that AENP was testing Petrozene. Would you please send me your email address via PM as I have a private question. I do not have PM capability with my account.
Thanks KP
ahote - could you please pass on to me the accountant that gave you the information you posted here (with a phone number). I would like to contact them myself as it seems highly irregular for any accountant to give out information that has not yet been released to the public.
Thanks in advance. KP
Welcome contractor! Got some real 'potential' here and less 'natural gas' IMO. KP
Thanks! His newsletter looks good. Has he published anything regarding 'Petrozene' or Freestone? KP