You were contacted BY EMAIL from loan company with PAPERWORK to request a stock loan quote? To be used WHEN the stock trades?

Please. That entire statement makes no sense.

Can we just stop with this loan nonsense?

And you people have been saying "soon" and "very soon" since forever. This is not happening anytime soon.

Can we stop with that nonsense, also?

The particular loan company wouldn't matter as there are many of them that make loans with verifiable information.

If the stock were to trade with the billions of outstanding shares, the price will invariably go up to start with, there would be millions of shares trading, and actually the lower the intial price the better (easier to move). If you're Owen and company and your shares are free, and you've got a few billion of them the price doesn't even have to move for you to make millions.

There are tons of people who believe in this, and will hang on to their shares and buy more with the expectation that once trading, the price will go up and the stock will move to the nasdaq.

Just look at what happened with PTRZ, and that stock has no underlying value what so ever, and yet there are some people that made some pretty good money with it.

There's still potentially way too much money on the table.

Let's say you get this stock trading (even at .0001), there's some 12 billion shares I hear. Now you tell the masses that in order to get loans there has to be sustained high volume trading over several months. The masses are now trading which will drive the price, and if you've got a couple of billion shares you can easily make a few million dollars over several months while people keep trading.

So what if the lenders never approve loans, that's not your fault, right?

No, there will be no loans for this not yet trading stock in the forseeable future. If there is ever a loan program(I don't see how this would be possible) it's AT LEAST A YEAR OR MORE out. The stock has to trade first, with sustained high volume and price over several months, again verifiable, auditable financials are the key. This by itself cannot happen until November or so, IF THEN.

There is no legally sane underwriter in the world that would approve this type of loan without them. Remember, Kingent states the miners can't get loans for the mines, that all these assets are based upon.

This has been in response to several emails, a couple of phone calls and text messages.

This has been the crux of my argument that Petro cannot trade anytime soon, from about the time I first started posting here. And it got the board constabulary for Petro undies in quite the twist. And that's when they were talking about the Nasdaq, though the expectations now have been considerably reduced.

If Petro cannot produce some verifiable audited financials, almost nothing else matters. Even if, (and it's a Godzilla sized if) Owen manages to get Petro KS trading, unless he submits the aforementioned financial information it's PTRZ 2 all over again, which is actually PTRZ 1 (until proven otherwise) and what's really the point of that?

All the KS, and MO sec stuff needs to be cleaned up, PTRZ needs to be dealt with, and this is even before you could submit an application that the SEC would take a few months to approve.

And all of this is assuming the hundreds of billions of assets are in fact correctly valued, which at this point, I'll bet the farm they aren't even close.

Great question. BUT, the Walgreens thing is a bad analogy for Kingent to use. Walgreens revenue is derived from their product and service, not the buildings. They could put the buildings anywhere, or move from their current location to a different one whenever they choose.

The mines are different, they are where they are, and can't be moved, and they are indistiguishable from the product.

I too am wondering how any information released could be misused by someone to hurt Petro.

As stated previously, I think your research skills are superb. I am also sure there are a great many people who read your findings and are happy/greatful (I've heard from them personally) just to have the information. Even though it may not be positive info, at least it's something tangible, and not just word of mouth, as Petro seems unable/refuses to produce anything.

If you step back and take a look at all the things you've dug up, along with the information already presented, it paints a pretty clear picture of the process and its future prospects.

As far as the mines are concerned, I think that even if they exist, the valuations are off by several orders of magnitude.

Just remember, the people that keep asking you why you keep digging up all this stuff, would be singing your praises if the information was more favorable.

You're mixing businesses. You're talking specifically about what the miners have put into their mines, which is great, and exactly what I'm talking about.

But where is this same devotion to Petro? Where's their "over 200K", their "million in set-up fees", the "over 4 million invested in acquiring property, testing etc."? It looks to me as if the only money put in by Owen and company come from people like you and I, and other investors. Where's their skin?

What does Johnny do for Petro that adds so much sweat equity?

And Petro doesn't pay anybody, at least legally(no payroll taxes).
I'm told there is no money except from the sale of the shares which is pretty much gone, and no attorney that writes checks. Why would you need an attorney to write checks anyway, when you have a (outsourced)CFO?

I mentioned this before and have been asked to explain it.

Many, many business people in start-up mode are unable to get loans, because they have no product or service, only an idea. They fund their business by getting personal loans, using credit cards, HELOC's, second mortgages, whatever they can get their hands on. They believe in their business enough to take those risks, and basically, bet the farm.

I know if this were my dream, I could get a few people together and get a couple of hundred thousand dollars to get it going.

The question is, why aren't Owen and company doing the same? Surely they've got enough people that want to 'share the blessing' enough to get some of their own skin in the game, right?

Johnny sponsers cruises, and sells property, and other stuff, doesn't HE have $50K to pitch in? What about the two guys, who are going to head up the international divison? The packaging guy? The electric car guy? The miners with exotic sounding expensive mineral screennames? Anybody?

No?

Well if you aren't willing to believe in yourself enough to risk your own assets, why should I believe in you?

I think that should be ounces, and not dollars. So if you multiply 1.7 million times $1,200 that gives you about $2 billion.

Which is why they'd list it at $14-$29 million. Quite the return on your investment, right?

I cannot understand why no one has snapped up this phenomenal opportunity.

By the way, your research skills are superb.

It sounds to me like there are problems with the valuation of these mines. You state that one of these mines has trillions, TRILLIONS, PLURAL, of dollars in minerals. I cannot fathom anyone who looks at whatever type of valuation that was used for this and saying to themselves, 'yeah, that sounds right'. That's a number followed by TWELVE ZEROS. 1,000,000,000,000.00

Barrick Gold, the worlds largest gold producer (whom I mention often) doesn't have a single trillion dollar anything on its balance sheet. So, as a lender if you came to me with this, I would think you were joking, or crazy.

The United States debt is currently $13 trillion. Your friends mine has the potential, just about by himself, ONE MAN, to wipe out the national debt!

See how that just doesn't even SOUND realistic?

Just ask yourself this question. Since the mine owners are so willing to give up so much, why not just partner with established producers? If I had a mine worth billions, or even hundreds of millions, I'd happily give up 70, 80 percent of it to get the 30, 20, hell even 10% of the proceeds. I mean, I don't know about you but I and my family and friends could certainly live on tens to hundreds of millions dollars, rather than hoping Petro would kick in.

And if I'm the aforementioned Barrick Gold, or another producer, I'd make you a sweet deal to get access to hundreds of millions to trillions of dollars of minerals. Absolute no brainer.

So again, it sounds like the valuations are the problem, which doesn't look good for Petro, and would explain A LOT.

Since we're posting heresay/rumors.

Someone just told me, that there was no white knight/investor that was loaning Petro money (which you mention also). They also state that Petro has "hardly any money" and has been "basically looking for handouts". I asked about the attorney writing checks and the source just laughed. Like you say, I can't confirm it, so it's just heresay at this point.

This whole deep throat thing is sad and comical all at once.

Please do not attempt to correct me. This is unequivocally false.

I presented this very question to an underwriter not long after I started posting here. Let me repeat this again as clearly as I can.

A TRADITIONAL ABL(ASSET BASED LENDER) WILL LOAN MONEY ON ANYTHING WITH A PROVEN VALUE.

Now they may make you stand on your head, jump through hoops, and turn cartwheels in addition to the financial and inventory(asset) audit, but they will lend you money. Again they are only concerned with making money. (this of course excludes criminals and unlawful activity)

Petros problem (the main one) is PROVING value. At this point despite all the hooplah about complete financials and audits, Petro hasn't submitted a single piece of paper claiming any asset. This is why they are unable to obtain a loan. That, and apparently none of the principals in the mess are creditworthy.

Remember, they can also get business loans backed with personal guarantees, and personal assets(home equity anyone? It's done all the time). I mean if this is such a sure thing and all, and Owen is really just "trying to help the little guy", you mean to tell me the core group can't get loans for a couple hundred grand? At least enough to pay off all the fines?

I mean really, where's the commitment here?

Well the whole thing sounded odd to me to begin with, and as I found out more and more...well.

I actually appreciate people such as yourself, because you present the ultimate challenge. If your arguments can be countered then my arguments are valid. And I would love to be on the other side of this argument.

That other sig, the cat with the cantaloupe helmet was priceless.

I don't even focus on the certs because of the uncertain legal standing of their solicitation. Even so, until Petro gets its financials in order, it's a moot point.

I did like the website though, loved the music. That Tion person did a great job. If only they will be able to back it up......

Exactly. It will be interesting to see the outcome.

I think the merger was complete, but as you said, they couldn't swap/merge the shares.

Yes sir, I did (well, saw a transcript, which were not up to your standards, btw). Unfortunately, due to the history of such proclamations I'm unable to put much faith in it.

Does anyone know what an "electronic trading key" is? I've never heard of it. Is it unique to the OTCBB?

If you know, please share.

The problem getting on the OTC is current financial statements. Even though there are no listing requirements, they still need to report to the SEC.

The "annual report" is just essentially a filing fee, there's no actual financial reporting, you just pay the fee and your current.

Am I the Anti-Christ?

What???? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Thanks! I really needed that!

Well, I don't think I am, I manage to regularly cross the threshold of the church without bursting into flame.......but I guess one never knows!

Good one.

Next.

This was a question that I was asked to answer, and as I recall that was the point in the first place, and was mentioned regularly until recent diminished expectations. A major exchange with a market maker.

As far as the OTC goes, seeing is believing. I'm going with the KS SEC and their assertion that Petro KS is PTRZ, that and all the other issues (the most important being, REPORTING) with Owen and company preclude a listing anywhere.

No offense, but "I thought they said..." just doesn't do it for me.

Why do you keep saying Petro and PTRZ are the same company?

The KS consent order says after their investigation of Petro KS, that they merged with ASWD which resulted in PTRZ. Owen also agreed with the order. Petro's own website even states this. (nice music btw).

I know FFF, and Harley and a few others disagree, but at this point, this is the only verifiable information available, that I know of. Let me know if you've got something else. You'll also notice that there are no more press releases.

Besides, I don't really argue this point much because this isn't what's holding Petro back. A lack of financial reporting to the SEC is what is holding Petro back. This is what needs to be done first.

You guys can send me an email, and I'll post here for others to see.

Why am I so negative against Petro?

I'm not negative as much as I am realistic. The ONLY VERIFIABLE information about Petro is negative. I would focus on the positive if I had it. Petro has an excellent opportunity to prove all the "negativity" is unfounded, and shut me and others up.

The audit is complete. Release it (or just show the report and redact the auditor), and the financials. There are hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars in assets. Where are they? Where's the electric car, the finance group(Isn't that ironic)? Where are the barrels of oil? and on, and on, and on.

Many, many, many questions, and no answers. Only rumors and, heresay.

Next.

Will Petro be on the Nasdaq?

Not currently possible. It is interesting to note that Petro with now over $300BILLION in assets, or book value that Petro has a greater market capitalization(worth more money, bigger company) and more shares outstanding than both Microsoft and Walmart among many other well known companies currently listed on major exchanges. Yet Petro is unable file current financial information with the SEC, or get a loan.

Next.

Petro is not a traditional widget company and thats why with all of their assets they can't get a loan.

This is bull part 2. Proven asset value is just that, PROVEN asset value. That is really all a traditional asset based lender cares about. Is there something of value backing the loan that they can sell in event of default by the borrower.

A pawn shop is an asset based lender. They will loan you money for your watch. Naturally a Rolex will get you more money than a timex, BUT at least you get SOMETHING. So Petro ought to be able to get SOMETHING with over $300 BILLION of collateral. I mean the MO fines are only $50 thousand.

next.

I've been asked to address a few things. Apparently there are a fair amount of people that read this stuff.

Secrecy: There is no reason for secrecy, quite the opposite actually. A normal company would want as much publicity, and advertise as much as possible. This has the effect of creating excitement about the stock, creating buzz and establishing a market for the stock and DRIVING UP THE VALUE. (which is, I think, the point)

Look at it this way, when a movie studio wants to create a buzz for a new movie, you see commercials on TV, ads on the internet, billboards, they screen the movie for critics, etc. They feel they have a good product(or are at least attempting to cover their costs) and they want as many people to show up as possible. The bad, and low budget movies? Not so much.

Next.

Mannnnn, don't even get me started. I am totally shocked by how deep this thing is. When I say "cult like", I am not kidding.

I am not trying to tear down the process, as I have a vested interest. I am critical because there are people who see false information presented, and get all excited and start to believe the 'we are close' line, when the facts prove otherwise.

You mention Edison, he was doing something that had never been done before, inventing something. This process has been done many, many, many times over, and in no way should have taken this long.

And yeah, Owen should be doing whatever it takes, day and night, to make this happen, that's how success is done.

Why do you say KS owns DE? Is there an agreement on this?

The KS consent order specifically states that PAC merged with ASWD. Owen would have had to explain it the KS SEC and he agreed to the order making the statement of fact.

Now whether or not the certs are legal, as they were not sold legally, remains to be seen, but they are the same company and thus cannot receive another ticker symbol.

The date wouldn't matter, Petro D could've been LLC'd/Inc'd in anticipation of whatever shell they were looking to aquire.

When the KS SEC served Owen and summoned him before the court, he had paperwork he had to fill out before he appeared. In the paperwork he would have had to explaine the relationship with PTRZ, and he agreed to the order.

Besides Petro D, by iself would not have been able to merge with ASWD, as it was just a filing (article of organization/incorporation, etc) so it would have taken Petro KS with its purported assets at that time to complete the merger. Petros problem is there has been no follow up reporting of assets to the SEC since then.

Concerning traditional loans, the fundamental concept of asset based lending is that the lender is able to recoup their investment by loaning a smaller percentage to the total value of assets pledged to back the loan. So as long as the mines have proven value, they wouldn't have trouble getting a loan, only the terms of the loan might not be as good as they'd like, but always preferable to giving up equity (stake in your company).

So the mine owners, unable to get a loan with the mines as assets, joined with Petro because when Petro goes public, the shares they sell will provide the mine owners with financing, based on the value of the mines that they can't get a loan on?

I don't think that is going to work.

Okay, per the Kansas Consent Order dated April 26 2010, and agreed to by Owen Hawkins,

"12. In February 2009, Petro America Corp and American Southwest Music Distribution engaged in a reverse merger."

and also,

"14. On June 18, 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a temporary suspension of trading of the stock of Petro America Corp."

This means Petro of Kansas reversed merged with ASWD and formed PTRZ. Then PTRZ was apparently set up as a DE corp.

Show your attorney the Kansas Consent Order and see what says after reading it.

They also had a tangible product along with regulatory filings, as opposed to Petro.

A company may only have one ticker symbol. Petro's is PTRZ.

No, I am not acting as their representative. Some know me personally, and my profession, and asked if I would talk to a few and try to answer some of their questions.

It ended up being more than a few people, and couple were somewhat hostile at what I said, so I don't think they would consider me as representing them.

It was actually very interesting, and sort of reflective of this board.

On the contrary, there is a ton of information that proves a large segement of the shareholder group was directly influenced to buy Petro through their respective churches. It is highly unlikely that were this same group, approached through avenues other than their churches, would've given this stock a second thought.

I met with a group of 30 or so church investors a couple of weeks ago because they wanted to ask questions and get something other than the standard unsubstantiated company line. The only information they were getting was from other members and the phone calls, and they had more detailed questions.



I am indirectly, yes. I was approached for financing a few times, and finally agreed to a contract for 25% of the proceeds or my intial loan whichever is greater. My 25% represents several million shares, so I'd ABSOLUTELY LOVE for this thing to work as advertised, it would be life changing for many in my life. However approached with the actual detail of this stock individually, I would never have become involved. There is just nothing there.

Everyone's risk tolerances are different, but I don't see how even as a start-up they had anything other than an idea. And to make all of the claims they've made based on just an idea is pretty crazy. No actual product, or service, just an idea. Also, to this point the only thing done that can be substantiated is the poorly executed reverse merger with PTRZ.

Still no product, or service, just an idea.

If they are offering pieces of Petro to these Investors you mention, that would be equity financing.

As far as traditional debt financing goes, it doesn't matter that Petro is not a traditional widget maker, or that its cashflow is negative. The only thing the lender is concerned with is whether or not they'll be able to recoup their investment. Preferably through loan payments, interest and fees, but alternatively by being able to sell whatever is used (assets) to secure the note.

Again if Petro were to put at risk just $10B (less than half of 1%, makes Petro shareholders happy)of the total assets to secure a $10M (very very small loan to value ratio, makes lender happy) I'd say that was a helluva deal which would make BOTH parties happy. A win/win, as opposed to risking company control to a few major investors, not to mention diluting share value.

I have been asked by a group of people (church investors) to speak with Owen, and I've been told that Owen is "aware of who I am" and to forward any investor contact information to him.

As I have told the people who are doing this bizarre grapevine thing. I work with traditional public lenders, both local and national, you can find them in the phone book (Commerce Bank, US Bank, CIT Group, etc) so there's no reason for the clandestine approach, and I am not personally needed. But conversely for Petro to move in this arena it would need to be able to publically disclose its reporting information, and withstand an inventory/audit by these types of organizations, and they are THOROUGH.

And other than a request for my contacts at these places (which I wouldn't disclose), I haven't heard anything.

Not sure why this would bother you, or others if it doesn't apply to you.

This thing started here, in Kansas City, in local churches. I believe the reason it's a sticky is because it is not viewed as a legitimate investment, as much as it was taking advantage of peoples naivete' through their religous beliefs. They totally bought it because of the church, no other reason.

I just can't see why any "sophisticated investor" would fool with this thing (with information that's available). Unless you're just throwing money at the wall and hoping something sticks, after all it's such a small investment compared to the potential return, right?

I mean what made you look at Petro, and say to yourself, 'hey, this could be a great investment'?

The US Attorney General? Eric Holder? Why would they invite him? Do they think he would have nothing better to do, than to come and inspect Petro's assets? You got this from a reliable source? And you believed them? C'mon, now this really is far fetched.

Which regulatory agencies are on Petro's back, and what are they on their back for? You mean Petro can't prove, provable assets to the US government?

Here's a really good question. Why would a mine owner with a HUGE amount of gold in their mine, sign over large chunks to Petro? Petro has no money to help them get the gold out of the ground, so what would be their incentive? Why not offer the same thing to actual gold producers?

Are all of these people this bad at business? No wonder they don't have any money.

This whole loan thing makes no sense. Why essentially weaken your control over your company by practically giving away equity? I mean equity financing over debt financing? With proven assets? Really? Wow. They seriously need strategic help way before they go looking for more money.

I negotiated a $2.5M revolving loan, with $1M at term, at prime +3 and prime +4 respectively for one of our stand alone subs (no backing from the parent) with assets of about $27M, which is a fraction of Petros assets. And I did it last year during the credit crunch. Of course this company already makes something, and provides a service, and you can actually touch and feel the assets. And believe me the lender (asset based) did a very thorough audit of the financials and inventory of the assets. This is why I continue to say Petro with all of its billions of proven assets not being able to get a loan from a traditional lender just doesn't make sense.

LOL, "Posting Jail", LOL. I wondered what happened to Godcan, he was always posting in caps and I felt like God was yelling at me. LOL.

I'm not sure the Ripoff Report thing would make much sense being applied to Petro. I mean, it's not a trading stock, let alone a Nasdaq trading stock, so how could it be shorted? Does Ihub even feature any Nasdaq stocks?

The other thing is, the two SEC links provided in the article, didn't mention anything about stock boards at all, only Market Makers colluding to manipulate price directly (unless I missed something, didn't read the entire thing). One link was even 11 years old.

Heh, "posting jail" heh, best laugh all day.