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.
Not "official", but from my notes and calculations and in line with the numbers posted by others who attended. The vote was tabulated by an independent company (Transfer Online?), and the results sent to Larry Horner who announced the results. I believe he was the one responsible for certifying the vote at the BDC meeting. There were some abstentions cast at the meeting, but no votes cast either yes or no, so the totals AMEP received and announced should be accurate.
I was there. Others there have also posted the result and their comments about the meeting. For a break-down of the voting results, see my post #33144.
The vote results have to be filed with the Delaware Secretary of State's office. Maybe a week to 10 days for the paperwork to make the rounds before the R/S becomes official.
But they would have to buy shares to cover?
"the naked shorts cover the same way"
How does that procedure work, especially for naked shorts (if there are any)?
"If the reverse stock split is approved, stockholders will be required to exchange their stock certificates representing Old Common Stock for new certificates representing New Common Stock."
A question for anyone here who knows:
If there are naked short positions in AMEP, don't they (indeed all short sellers) have to cover their positions before the R/S when the certificates must be turned in and converted to new shares? Any ideas on the unauthorized shares that were issued by the transfer agent without AMEP consent? Anyone know?
Just remember. I'm talking AMEP time here. Triple it and add another week just to be safe! lol
Dr. Sinecure
It is a really big air compressor they are waiting for (and possilby a back-up, but I don't remember). They need it to use the faster air drilling method with the Challenger instead of the slower mud system drilling used with the Phantom.
OT: Thanks for the alternate travel suggestion. It was nice not dealing with the traffic on the north side of Fort Worth and also often at Denton. The first segment of the turnpike between Wichita Falls and Lawton really needs to be rebuilt, though. You can make good time, but it is a bad, IMO unsafe (by today's standards) road. The only real problem was connecting to I-35 in OKC. My car's navigation system had me take the connection furthest south. Traffic was backed up on the entrance ramp. Would it have been better to go further north, say past Will Rogers and then east to I-35?
I have enjoyed your reactions to the meeting and tour. If you are interested, send me your Yahoo email or other address and I will be happy to send you my thoughts on the day. tharmonamep2@cox.net
Yes, you are correct on the lease and the numbers. I believe the 3300 feet was drilled using a heavy workover rig. The Phantom rig is set up onsite, but they are still setting up all of the auxiliary equipment. Ready to start drilling the remaining depth by the end of this week?
Fish
The company has addressed Etrade and Scottrade about the matter already, but was given the big run-around. Now that the vote is over, you may expect them to address it again a bit more seriously and forcefully.
Voting break-down:
494 million total outstanding shares
428 million shares actually voted - 86.6%
66 million shares not voted - 13.4%
263 million yes votes - 53.2% (61.4% of shares actually voted)
164 million no votes - 33.2% (38.3% of shares actually voted)
330 thousand abstain votes - .1% (.1% of shares actually voted)
230 million combined no/abstain/not voted - 46.6%
Of the 494 million total outstanding shares, 263 million votes (53.2%) were cast for the proposal, 230 million shares (46.6%) counted against the proposal (but not all were actually voted).
(rounding error may prevent totals from reaching 100% or balancing)
get a message "Cannot open the file."
Same here. I get an error message. Are youu on a Mac by chance?
Excuse me for posting something positive, but just in case it was missed in the report:
"In July and August 2007, the Company filed all past due franchise tax reports with the State of Texas and the State of Delaware. As a result, management anticipates that the Company and all of its wholly-owned subsidiaries will be declared in good standing in the near future."
The change in value was presented in the BDC proxy filing and has been discussed for months. It should not be any surprise. It is a ". . . change in accounting principle . . ." BDC's use different accounting methods than operating companies do, from using Net Asset Value to using historical cost using proved reserves. ". . . there is no reason to believe that the worth of the investments would be different . . ." The change should be a good thing.
From the BDC DEF-14:
EFFECT ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND TAX STATUS
The withdrawal . . . as a BDC . . . will result in a significant change in the Company's required method of accounting. BDC financial statement presentation and accounting utilizes the value method of accounting . . . which allows BDCs to recognize income and value their investments at market value as opposed to historical cost . . .
. . . As an operating company, the required financial statement . . . will be either the fair value or historical cost method of accounting . . . all of the previously recorded unrealized gain on investments will be no longer be reflected in the Company’s financial statements. Thus, though there is no reason to believe that the worth of the investments would be different, the method of accounting will change.
. . . the Company will no longer present a Net Asset Value (“NAV”) in its financial statements or supplemental NAV financial information in the footnotes to the Company’s consolidated financial statements.
. . . the Company will use the “successful efforts” method of accounting for acquisition, exploration, development and production of oil and gas properties, whereby only the direct costs of acquiring or drilling successful (proved reserves) are capitalized . . .
The change in accounting due to the conversion to an operating company from a BDC is considered a change in accounting principle . . .
Is there any amount for legal expenses (due to SEC review?) mentioned?
"In my opinion, all of the questions go away if the company had just created a proposal commensurate with what normal companies present-"
I agree with you. They didn't though. This is where we are, and what we have to vote on. I'm sorry if you felt I was questioning you personally. This is turning into an argument which achieves nothing and I don't have anything new that hasn't been said before. It is past time for me to return to my self-imposed ban. (Actually, I have to BBQ a steak and get ready for the KC Chiefs pre-season game. What kind of a steak, you ask? Why, a KC strip steak, of course! lol)
Nelderand - "1)If a company's assets are worth so much, why would somebody stoop to threatening to dissolve the company?"
Facts can be threatening. Could he have been telling the truth? You have been there and seen it, and Hayhauler has said it. AMEP is a small, start-up, mom and pop company. Yes, it has potential and the company has income from its wells, but does a well's production go up, stay the same, or go down over time? My information says it goes down. How much does it cost to service a well to keep it producing? Other than, CB and JC, AMEP essentially has no paid staff or inhouse oilfield workers. They must contract out for the mechanics, welders and other specialized workers. What are the actual production costs incurred? How much does it cost to maintain the equipment the company currently has? What are the administrative costs to just keep the doors open, legal things like producing and auditing the 10-Q and 10-K reports? How much does it cost to drill a new well? Growing an oil company is expensive and AMEP has been trying to grow. Has the company, even with its production income, ever shown a profit? Can you state for a fact that if the R/S does not pass, the company has the financial reverves to "keep the doors open" and still grow? Can you assure me that if the R/S fails, the company has the financial reserves to survive the expenses of another proxy and "come back with a better deal" as some have suggested? Do we really know? Things can not stay the same. Due to the nature of the business, oil companies must either try to grow, or they will surely die because of falling production. Will you be satisfied with your share of what is left of the company's assets if the company can not grow, or tries to grow without new funding and must be liquidated?
The BOD stated "The Board believes that if the recommended reverse stock split is not approved by the shareholders, the viability of the Company as a going concern is at significant risk. Additionally, if shareholder approval is not received, the Board believes that the Company will have no avenue to attract the required capital it requires and shareholder value will be greatly compromised." They are responsible to the SEC for their statement. Is it possible there may be at least a little bit of truth to it?
Huh? My point was "Investors and prospective investors should be cautious of rumors on chat rooms where the intent of nameless and faceless computer users is in doubt." Everyone should have a certain element of doubt about anything posted here unless they can find independent verification.
I'm lost. Who are "these funders". Are you saying or implying that AMEP can short sell its own stock? You did lead me to some fascinating information on the SEC site, however. Thank you.
12. I read on an internet chat room or website that a specific security has a large number of fails; are these sources reliable?
Investors should always be cautious that issuers, promoters, or shareholders may be seeking to stimulate buying interest by making false, misleading or unfounded statements in internet chat rooms or other such forums about alleged large naked short positions in some smaller issuers, particularly those trading on the OTCBB or Pink Sheets. Some individuals may encourage other investors to buy these issuers' securities by claiming that there will be an imminent "short squeeze," in which the alleged naked short sellers will be forced to cover open short positions at increasing prices. These claims in fact may be false.
The Commission's Office of Investor Education and Assistance has made available publications on the Commission's Internet web site (www.sec.gov) that provide helpful guidance on the securities markets and sales and trading practices, including short selling. Investors and prospective investors should be cautious of rumors on chat rooms where the intent of nameless and faceless computer users is in doubt.
My own question: Do you suppose this also applies to people ". . . seeking to stimulate selling interest by making false, misleading or unfounded statements . . ." I do find their use of the term "seeking" interesting, pseeker. Don't you?
What you replied with was opinion. It has nothing to do with my request from hayhauler to help us by sharing the information he has about CB and his brother. He can save us time and effort he has already made by sharing with us so we can use that as a starting point to "check it out" in further detail. Why the need to reinvent the wheel?
It would help us if you would share the information you have so we can check it out.
BTW/OT: During my vacation, you would not believe the number of wind generator farms I saw while traveling through southern Germany. Most of them had relatively few windmills, maybe 10-15, but the technology does seem to be maturing.
lol Tell you what. He's showed his true hand. I promise not to make any more posts today if he will do likewise. (Actually, I volunteer to do it anyway unless someone asks me a specific question. His comments no longer exist.)
OT for others: MrD
". . . you yes voters . . ." Please post where I have ever stated that I was either in favor of the R/S or that I have/am going to vote yes. I believe I have stated more than once that I have not voted and do not plan to vote until the 10-Q comes out (unless it is late). That has not changed. Something isn't necessrily true just because you repeat it over and over. If you want others to buy in to what you keep saying over and over again, perhaps you need to be more credible. You have attacked my integrity. Can you back it up with truth, or will you dodge the issue as you have others before? If you have forgotten about the "before", it is posted below. It is your credibility at stake.
You have said "The nice thing about Democracy, voting, and accountability is that the people and voters will decide. It is after all, what much of the blood shed by countless hero's was in defence of and my way of honoring such sacrifice." You have stated "I fully stand by Democracy assuming it's a fair election . . .", yet you have also said "As to what will be done in the event of passage it's already in the works". This week you said "Legal battle? Bank on it". That is clearly a threat of legal action against the company if the proposal passes. Which statements do you stand by, democracy or not? It can't be both. It's your credibility.
If the majority of shareholders of record choose in a certified vote to vote in favor of the R/S proposal, will you respect the decision of the majority? Yes or No?
Any parents here? Maybe we should take away the cookies and milk from anyone who refuses to contribute productive posts, doesn't respect the rights of others, refuses to disagree or discuss without sarcasm and personal attacks, or is using a child's wear-down tactics to get their own way.
Thanks Contractor and Red Six for starting us off today on topic with great and informative DD on the drilling business. It was nice to learn something new.
For those who have not been to Mineral Wells, the rig used in Contractor's videos is very similar in size to the Challenger rig which has apparently been converted to use air drilling (in addition to mud?). The closing comment mentioned finishing up by testing the quality of the water, so I'm guessing it wasn't a oil/gas well, but I didn't realize all the preliminary casing work was needed for a water well. Can anybody explain further? Also, notice how low to the ground the rig is, and I didn't see a blow-out preventer. They have built a platform for the Challenger to sit on that raises it up about 3-4 feet. It was also a shallow well, 630 feet that they drilled in a week. Much of that week was probably doing the initial work - drilling, setting and cementing the outer and inner casings. Our Barnett wells are drilled to 4,500+ feet and involves pulling out a lot more drill pipe whenever a drill bit needs replaced. The Phantom 1 rig is a bigger rig, but not as big or nearly as fancy as the huge new computerized with crew living quarters on board that you mostly see on TV. It works on a platform that raises it up about 8 feet off the ground and currently uses a mud system to line the bore hole, cool the bit and remove debris.
I have asked the company questions about how horizontal drilling is done and the video description of the frac method matches what I was told. Therefore, I believe AMEP used a staged frac job for the horizontal on the Padgett 12.
The article posted describes tertiary recovery methods of removing oil. I believe PRI was experimenting using thermal along with it's additive, but as the article mentioned, it is an expensive method. It is certainly feasible they have moved on to try newer, less expensive technology.
MrD - Do you ever read your own post and consider if they might possibly also apply to you? ". . . if you say it enough it might make it all better." How many times this week have you said the same things over and over?
Without the surge during the last minute of the market yesterday, the close would have been .0165 or no change for today. Without today's drop from a sale of 5,000 shares two minutes before close, the previous buy of 60,000 shares would have been the close at .018 or an increase of .0015 for the day, unless of course you use yesterday's actual close of .0195. Both final sales could be considered manipulations. So many woulds, coulds, and ways to look at numbers.
Nelderand - And for how many years have preferred shares been available without any being given out?
Nelderand - Didn't he have to put a significant amount of money into the company to receive those preferred shares the first time?
MrD - "I fight for a better deal for myself, the other shareholders and the longterm fiscal health of the company."
Yes, within your own evaluation, you are, and that is fine. That is your right. What about the rights of "the other shareholders"? What if your view of a better deal doesn't happen? What if the majority of shareholders of record choose in a certified vote to vote in favor of the R/S proposal. Will you respect the decision of the majority? If you do not, what affect will that have on ". . . the other shareholders and the longterm fiscal health of the company" you care about? That is why I keep asking if you if will, or if you won't respect the majority decision. Yes or no?
MrD - The company just satisfactorily completed "a thorough and honest review of company actions" by the SEC, didn't it?
Working together afterwards will indeed be the only way any of us will have anything left of our money. I personally don't care to ". . . lose every cent as long as these folks don't benefit . . ."
Sorry, no deflecting the question, sarcasm or assuming allowed. For instance, I would "assume" before anyone puts their neck on the line by certifying a vote, they would be sure there weren't any "shenanigans". Therefore, please make it crystal clear to me. If the majority of shareholders of record choose in a certified vote in favor of the R/S proposal, will you respect the decision of the majority? It is a simple yes or no answer. You either will, or you won't.
Mrditbme, that answer was no more "crystal clear" than your answers to my questions last month.
What if the majority in a fair, certified vote chooses in favor of the R/S proposal? You have said "The nice thing about Democracy, voting, and accountability is that the people and voters will decide. It is after all, what much of the blood shed by countless hero's was in defence of and my way of honoring such sacrifice." Yet, you have also said "As to what will be done in the event of passage it's already in the works" and you just now said "Legal battle? Bank on it". That is clearly a threat of legal action against the company if the proposal passes. Which statements do you stand by, democracy or not?
Your answer of "I fully stand by Democracy assuming it's a fair election and no shenanigans have taken place getting it in place or the details behind it . . ." leaves a big back door of ambiguity open in your answer. Hardly crystal clear, so, I ask again. What if the majority in a fair, certified vote chooses in favor of the R/S proposal? Will you respect the decision of the majority?
Yet, all shareholders who have chosen to support the split and vote yes are some type of "clique", a conspiracy, simply because they disagree with you? Maybe they are ". . . getting out to avoid the split loss . . ." also, but because ". . . the repercussions of my own actions . . ." scares them. It does me. Before your leave of absence, you made threats of taking legal action against the company regardless of how the majority of shareholders voted. You were choosing to not respect the voting process and to ignore the decision of the majority. This morning you posted "Legal battle? Bank on it". Those repercussions won't just be yours to endure. They will affect everyone! Exactly what does "When I sell, you'll feel it . . ." mean? Another threat?
Some good points, Jacobboaz, there have been other influences, also.
Still, if you look at the ratio and volume of posts "in favor" to posts "against" since the R/S was announced on 6/8 (leaving out ctb's daily sparring and mrditbme's automatic slams of anything positive, lol), I feel the daily attacks and sheer hate expressed has to have had a negative influence on the pps. Has the severe drop in pps this week been influenced by an increase of "pumper posts", or has it been because of fear caused by the reemergence of threats of legal action against the company and individuals regardless of which side "wins" and posts such as ". . . there are also many basis for a law suit. I don't care if I lose every cent as long as these folks don't benefit . . ." (posted last night on RB), or is it simply an independent continuation of the previous drop?
Isn't that covered by SEC regulations and Delaware Corporate Code that has already been posted here?
Mrditbme,
I'm sorry you weren't hungry for the menu. Here's some different food for you to try. When you took your leave of absence on 7/18, the closing price that day was .023. On Friday, 8/3, the Friday before you returned, the close was .020, or a drop of .003 during the two and a half weeks you were gone. After three market days and 50 posts this week since you've been back, todays close would have been a drop of another .0035 without the last minute surge. Has the share price gone down more, or gone down less while you have been here posting compared to while you were gone? Don't forget to add the .024 drop of the "market" adjustment before you left.
Food for thought.
This morning someone insinuated that the company was ". . . running my investment into the ground . . ." and someone this afternoon accused CB of ". . . killing the shareholder value . . ." Now, I realize I am jousting with windmills here, but it seems to me we fail to truly consider the effect our own posts may have had on the shareprice. Let me explain.
6/8 - The closing price before the R/S was announced was .064.
6/15 - The closing price after one week, more than sufficient time for the "market" to analyze and act on their evaluation of the R/S proposal, was .047. That was a .017 drop due to "market" reaction.
We, the posters, some of whom are not even shareholders, need to accept responsibility for contributing to the further drop in pps. The continual arguing of exactly the same points, the lack of respect for other opinions, the personal attacks, the repeated accusations and innuendoes, talk of shareholder revolts, threats of legal action against the company, etc., have all contributed to the pps continuing its drop. I challenge everyone to check own your posts of the last two months and consider both the tone of and the sheer volume of your posts. What would your reaction be if you were a new investor who knew nothing about AMEP and read your posts? Today's close was .0195, but it would have closed at .0165 without a last minute (literally) surge. That is a total additional drop in pps of .0275 since the "market" made its adjustment. How much have we contributed to that additional drop?
When I returned from vacation 7/9, the closing price three weeks after the initial "market" reaction was .0215. Since that date, the pps tried twice to recover with a closing high of .025 on 7/10 & 11, then down followed by a new high of .0259 on 7/16. Since 7/16 the pps went steadily down until it closed at .019 on 8/1 when it tried again to recover after the 8-K explaining JB's note.
I think most people would agree that there are parts of the proxy that we may not like. Some feel the BOD should have never requested the R/S in the first place. Fine, but they did. Others feel the proxy should have been revised or withdrawn. Fine, but it wasn't. It is what it is. Vote on it and let the people that hold the shares decide. Please, let's not continue to trash ourselves and our own money in the process!