Why would there even be "paid naysayers"? What would be the point?

Any untruth could easily be refuted, and proven as false by the company. I saw a post making mention that I was "paid" to bash Petro, and was deleted before I could respond (I really hate posts being deleted).

The really odd thing is, is that nearly all of the information deemed to be "negative" can be proven or has some basis in fact, while while hardly any of the "postive" information can be proven at all. Yet it continues to be posted, mostly because of heresay.

It makes you wonder who's really paid to post here.

PTRZ stock has no underlying value. The only reason the price rose in the first place was there was a belief that the merger with PK would bring value to it. The only reason it hasn't fallen to its ASWD price is that there are some hangers on who are hoping the the price will go back up, or can't find buyers at a higher price.

After doing some checking, it appears that getting these "church shares" to trade electronically is questionable as they were sold illegally, at least in KS and MO.

Petro Kansas is already trading under PTRZ. So in order for their to be a NEW listing, this one has to be dealt with. So there will not be a new "symbol" for a while yet, certainly not "in the next week or two".

True, however that willingness to purchase is based upon the underlying value of the stocks.

You're a smart guy, you know as well as I do that the entire system of trading equities wouldn't work if the companies on which these equities were based produced no goods or services, and thus no underlying value (like PTRZ).

I can see that you and Harley have this thing going on, but it's really funny to see others jump in and try to justify your argument.

You may well be right. Although he appears to be the CEO of the Ecologic company, it's not really clear whether or not he is still with Heller. Turn around companies will generally act as CEO of the company they are trying to fix, until they get it fixed, sell it, or liquidate it.

My point was really that he didn't have time to fix his current company and Petro.

There is also still the issue of compensation.

You guys are funny. Are you really arguing about a stock with no underlying fundamental value? What does this company do that even supports its current price? Or, just what does this company do period?

And are you truly trying to credit a mans business acumen as to the increase in value of that stock?

The reality is more along the lines of a ponzi scheme wherein early "investors" are paid with the money of the later "investors".

Hell, if I bought rocks as an investment, then put them in blu-ray boxes, and sold them out of the trunk of my car with a 5,000% mark-up, does that mean the rocks are worth that because they're in blu-ray boxes? Of course not.

Upon further reveiw, I would like to amend my earlier statment.

From highly unlikely to downright impossible.

http://ecologictranspo.com/index.html

This guy, Bill Plamondon, isn't about to leave his CEO post of this already sinking ship (that he may save) to get on one that can't even get in the water.

Although, I can see how there could be a connection. I'm actually surprised Owen hasn't been talking about any green initiatives, as those are pretty hot right now.

On a brighter note, if you want to see how a reverse merger should work, this company is a good example. They are fully reporting and everything!! There are actual financial statements, and a 10Q!!

Even this company with its $91K in assets and NEGATIVE working capital of -$303K! is at least publishing.

Why can't Petro with working capital that must be unbelievable (literally) with all those assets, and no debt or creditors publish this unbelievably postive news? Or get a loan? Or a clue?

If a CEO of the type mentioned shows up to run Petro, then I will be checking the Weather Channel, because it will mean hell has indeed frozen over.

Can I say this with absolute certainty? No I can't (and didn't) but I'd certainly be willing to place a BIG bet on it (any takers, you guys like to gamble right?).

Again, there isn't any cash, right? Didn't Kingent say they were negotiating with a white knight to pay fines (and stuff)? We'd be talking big dollars upfront here.

As to ego, anyone who publicly states that their goal is to win the Nobel Prize, and create as many billionaires (with a B) as possible, and let us not even mention "The Owen Hawkins Show" (really need to take this down btw), that guy has a HUGE ego. We're talking extra large here.

Credibility, notwithstanding of course.

Incredibly highly unlikely. It is unbelievable how unlikely this is.

First, Owen isn't going anywhere, unless this whole thing is a sham and it would be his exit strategy. There is simply too much ego involved.

Second, and most important, no established major CEO (of a reputable public company) in his right mind would take the helm of this morass. The first thing they would demand is some guaranteed upfront cash, and this company can't even/has trouble coming up with $40K to pay some simple fines, so apparently there's no cash to give (and shares of stock as compensation is a non-starter). There's just really too many little things that don't work (harbinger of larger ones)for an established guy to take a chance on.

Actually he/she means keep things real, by posting factual information, that some here try to overlook, and keep pretending that everything is just fine, and it's only a matter of time.

Or the "any day now" comments, or the "we're razor close" statements. This is what they mean. Not the over the top unsupported, unsubtantiated claims a certain group of people on this board make on a regular basis.

"I never called you a naysayer. I did refer to others who we described as naysayers, who warned us. Does it matter who it is or what they are called who let people know it might not work as they wish?"

Sure you did, not directly, but by lumping me in with the other "naysayers". It obviously does matter what you call them(us) or you wouldn't have gone through the trouble to make the name up in the first place. We "naysayers" certainly didn't name ourselves.

"I never saw any references to wealth here or about major exchanges. You're the one talking about it."

Then you must be the only person here that hasn't heard about the $2-$24 share amount being bandied about, or the desire to get on the Nasdaq, not the pinks.

"This is getting old. We know you are letting us know it may not turn out as we wish. What is this business about "truth" I may not be ready for? Hey, I'm the last one avoiding truth. I'm known to champion it. Actually whether I accept truth or not has nothing to do with your end of things. You've done enough to let us know it won't happen as many of us hope. So why don't you quit?"

I am actually not trying to let you know anything. Your agenda here is obviously different from most of the investors. So you, psu, and havefaith, and a few others have no use for the facts, or the law, as you all continually discount them, as though they don't matter, and Petro will be able go forward regardless of these laws and facts.

I am trying to let those who want to believe, but also use their common sense know, that the picture isn't nearly as rosy as a certain group of you here try to paint it.

What truth are you trying to champion here, anyway? I'd REALLY like to know what that is.

And you've done enough to try and dissuade me from posting those little pesky facts and laws, and to let me know Petro will make everyone rich beyond their WILDEST dreams despite this. It hasn't worked, so why don't you just quit?

Actually, I have the rights to several million shares. Does that now give me the right to worry, and feel unsafe?

But you never answered my original question to you.

You're a sophisticated investor, right? Faith has nothing to do with it. So what makes you so sure about Petro. What makes you think it's going to provide so much wealth for you?

I am not trying to "warn" anyone. I just want people who are concerned to understand their increased expectations are unfounded due to flat out mis-information.

It is really odd that you are always so quick to jump to the defense of others, and then hit the TOS button on my reponse.

Are you really afraid of the truth? Or are you afraid of others understanding the truth? Because I can back up what I say. Can you say the same?

You call me a self-important naysayer. Again, I post factual information. How does that make me a "naysayer". Are you afraid of the facts? I haven't said Petro is a scam, or the assets aren't real, only what can't happen based upon the law.

In all of your bluster, where are your facts?

You people are killing me.

What part of "Petro must be fully reporting, before they can be listed on a major exchange" don't you understand? Geez!

You people seem to want to overlook this VERY IMPORTANT POINT.

If understanding the LAW makes me a know-it-all, then I am in good company, and we are legion.

I am not trying to rescue anyone, and your missionary reference is just ridiculous. I am trying to help people understand that this thing isn't going anywhere near as smoothly as it's made out to be so don't get your hopes up. And that all who espouse the same axioms about Petro will be trading "soon", alluding to the idea that all shareholders will be wealthy, really have no idea what they are talking about.

Right now, and for the forseeable future, the best Petro can hope for, is to be a pink sheet stock, and that's not going to cut it. Been there, done that, and got the grey sheets to prove it.

You and I have been down this path before. You tell me what you think, and I tell you what I know. When you can tell me what you know, maybe we can have a real discussion about this.

Until then......

Why don't you drop your, I don't know anything but some other people who know people say it's a good thing and that's good enough for me pose, as it was tiresome the first time you did it.

Yes my contacts are limited in this area. I handle the accounting for a few churches here in the Kansas City area, and was approached by people from the churches about this, which is how I know about it.

This has become personal to me because it seems every week I hear of another person who is truly counting on this. A couple of weeks ago, a woman asked me about this, she said she had been really praying because someone had told her we were "close" and she was counting on this money to help her sick grandson.

I've heard about bills, foreclosures, illness, bankruptcy, all supposed to be fixed by this. This is so much more than an investment for them, and it's making me angry because my perspective doesn't allow the faith they are exhibiting, and I can see the process for what it is.

Aside from that, I would truly love to know what the business people you know are thinking. I've talked to a few people on the investment side, and without some hard numbers, it's not something they'd even consider.

Really? What made you take this chance? What caused you to believe, without a doubt, that this would create great wealth for you?

And you misunderstand me, I'm a person of great faith, as long as there is a strong foundation on which it can be placed.

But faith alone, against knowledge will rarely come out on top.

Kingents thoughts/ideas seem to be thought through, which is why I asked her questions, however when I look at her answers, though they sound reasonable, some don't really make sense. For instance:

"Is Petro revenue producing? I think the packaging company is the only income producing asset at this time. I could be wrong. But they set out to be an Asset based company."

Based on their payroll reporting the packaging companys revenues would be a rounding error relative to Petros $200B+ in assets. And all companies have assets, so setting out to be an asset based company makes no sense. Although that does sound good, right?

"If Petro had creditors, they would have plenty to go after. Also, as far as I know, they don't have creditors... unless you count their obligations to companies they have bought/are buying."

The only way Petro would not have creditors, is if they didn't exist. You can't operate a business without paying people or companies to help you operate your business.

"Plan for revenue: Get the stock trading. The mines will then have capital to become producing and that will throw off cashflow to Petro."

This is the cart before the horse. Petro has to produce something promising and THEN people will purchase stock. But again, it sounds good.

"As for payroll and unemployment taxes, I have no idea. But if it were me, I'd stand on my head and do back flips to avoid having actual employees until I had 10 or so. Unemployment is miserable and so is payroll crap. "If I lay myself off, do I get unemployment? No? Then why am I paying unemployment on myself?" Government is stupid."

Petro has no employees? A company worth billions, with people working "around the clock" has no employees?

Also, regardless of how stupid you may think the rules are, if you want to play, you must play by the rules. There are no public companies on the major exchanges that don't pay payroll taxes.

I think Kingent believes what she's saying, and I respect her for that, it's just that though it sounds good, it doesn't really make sense.

The list of people I've seen and personally know, which numbers a few hundred are all faith based. These folks have all been exposed to this through the church. Now they may have gotten others involved who aren't active in the church, but this is where this has originated here in Kansas City.

Most of these people have no idea what a balance sheet or a p&l is, let alone how an investment works, there in this because someone told them they had an opportunity to 'share the blessing'.

Even the screen names of several posters gives some insight to their thinking.

While not everyone is in it because of religion, there are a fair amount of people who are.

So yes, God and faith have a lot to do with this investment, and that is a huge problem.

I work on the corporate side, and from that perspective it is not possible for Petro to do what it is claiming, at least at this point.

I have been thinking for some time now, that the idea is to get the stock trading on the pinks (this buys time with explanations/excuses about how it will move to the Nasdaq), and that will give the people some hope and show a little progress, and keep the faithful, faithful. This kicks the can down the road a bit.

But this does not take into consideration that PK has ALREADY merged with PTRZ, and that situation must be dealt with before they can go further with anything else.

Even after that, there are a multitude of obstacles to overcome, and we haven't even gotten to verifying the assets.

Even still, a guy walks up to me last week, he winked at me and said, 'we're really close!'.

But this isn't about faith, it's about money. Faith is only useful to the people that would have you believe that there's money attached to it, and thus blind you to all the unfavorable factual information you see right in front of you. 'Just have faith, it'll work out.'

Money says this thing won't work without audited financials that the SEC and a market maker view as viable. Faith says don't worry, it'll work itself out.

Money says there are certain rules you have to follow, and even after that, you have to show me proof of everything you just told me. Faith on the other hand, says let's all pray very hard, and things will work out.

Money does not believe in faith, it only believes in itself, money, and it makes a powerful statement for those that don't believe that.

This is what irritates me so much about this. Good people (such as yourself, I imagine) are putting considerable faith in a man and a plan, that looks to be fatally flawed.

I cannot understand the belief you all have in the face of such contrary information. Someone just posted that they think the stock will trade in a couple of weeks. This is impossible, time contraints alone prohibit this from happening, but, it keeps getting posted as something that will hopefully happen.

I know people personally that believe in this, and no matter what I tell them about not getting their expectations so high, they will not listen. They know I work in corporate finance and accounting, and yet, they still will not listen. 'You just have to have faith', 'God will make this happen' etc. It's almost cult like.

I know some very good people that will be crushed, if Owen doesn't pull this off, and frankly it's not looking good.

This is what I suspect will happen. IF they trade, it will be as another penny stock that gets that gets bumped off of the pinks when they do not report.

I really don't see how anything else is possible.

If the audit is complete, why not publish the results? Any mention of the auditor can be redacted, so as not to have the auditor flooded with calls or threats, as is the fear I often see posted for not giving specific information.

Why not show the audit report, and the auditors statement, and notes?

I do not see how this could cause any harm, and it would help support Petros claim of massive value.

Kingent, you seem to know more about Petro than anyone else I can find, or at least you are better able to articulate it. I am not asking how you know, that's more or less irrelevant. So, a couple of questions.

Is Petro revenue producing? If not, how will they become revenue producers? What is the business model anyway?

Petro claims employees, would it surprise to know that Petro doesn't any payroll or unemployment taxes in either KS or MO?

I understand if you don't know, but you're the closest thing I can find to any type of coherent answers, including people I know personally.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as optimistic as the next guy, but if I'm walking west believing I'll see a sunrise, no amount of optimism, faith or prayer is going to help me.

You cannot compare Petro to any of the companies you guys keep mentioning. If nothing else, those companies Walmart, Firestone, etc. sell directly to the public and have retail outlets. This is apparently not even PK's business model. Nonetheless, I would challenge any of you to find a major publicly traded company (none mentioned above were ever pink sheets) that put forth NO information, and then suddenly went public on one of the three major exchanges.

When you make these types of comparisons, it's easy for people, Harley in particular, to pick your argument apart.

You say Petro is not your standard B/M store. What is it?

Petro should definately offer a product. What would that be?

Do you know if Petro is even revenue producing at this point? If no, then why not?

I think I'll address Kingent directly, he/she seems to know more than anyone else.

"How long did it take them to become publicly traded
Sears, Walmart, Kmart, Firestone, Ford, etc."

These companies had a product and/or service they provided to people, BEFORE they became public. They also, provided all types of financial information, which was readily verifiable. Petro cannot say the same.

This would be a bad analogy, and merely helps to support Harleys point.

Understood. My point is, how are you unable to legally do business in the state where your world headquarters is located?

Actually, according to this, as of May 14, 2009 Petro is already administratively dissolved.

Were they re-instated at some point?

https://www.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskb/Filings.asp?2645046#

It's David "Waltzer". Well at least the websites should start looking better, and have more information on them.

It's David "Waltzer". Well at least the websites should start looking better, and have more information on them.

What is this fascination with certs?

If you get them, then what? What does that mean?

I've been trying to figure this out, and I just don't know. Either you're a shareholder of record or you aren't. As long as you can prove puchase and date, you're good.

$500 per 100K. They said they were told that the $100 offer was no longer good because this was the last time he could get anyone else "in".

I keep shaking my head. Unbelievable.

I have personally heard people talk who say they were buying Petro shares from Owen Hawkins directly in the month of April (last month). They stated that they had to buy them in $500 blocks/100K shares. "Guaranteed money" his words to them.

I really didn't ask questions, just listened, because even though they are VERY passionate about the stock, they are just as defensive when questioned about it.

Why is this man still selling stock in April? Geez.

What does "up and running within two months" mean?

Oil drilling? Gold extraction? Going public? Stock trading? People get certs? Electric car being built?

What?

It's this type of vague, abstract comment that drives people like me, that base their opinions on factual information, to distraction.

Yes, I know, AND I was being pretty conservative. And this in no way disparages the company itself, I'm only commenting on the companies value relative to Petros.

Actually with 1 truck, 3 loading docks, 26,000 sqft (about half a football field)some equipment, no more than two people in any picture (I swear one looks like a UPS guy) and considering what they do, I am being very conservative.

This is before you add in the part about selling 51% of your company.

You make a valid point kej. Looking at the website, this company clearly wouldn't add any significant value to Petro.

I'd guess the employees at less than 100 (more likely, < 50) and revenues certainly under a million per year.

I also find it interesting how Petro could own 51% of this company. What owner would give up a controlling interest?

"I have heard there is a very wealthy investor who is helping Petro Kansas become publicly traded."

"Tired of all the speculation....lets get to the facts!"

But this is what causes confusion. You've heard something, from someone, which is just heresay.

"And hangup is the 15c 211 and not the audit"

The 211 cannot be submitted before the company is public. So, when you say the wealthy investor is helping the company go public, and then say the hangup is the 211 not the audit, these become competing statements and cancel each other out.

Hmmm.... the plot thickens. Do we know if the entire $1M was raised? Was the $250K meant for operating capital? Or did it really go straight to the CEO? This would be a problem with not reporting, because the cash is not being accounted for.

I thought under this filing you can't sell to the general public, or advertise? (don't remember this, have to look it up)

It still appears that the merger took place, because the shares would have to have been swapped in order for the new company to be listed. But maybe ALL of the KS shares were never part of the process to begin with, or unable to be participate due to the SEC. Hmmm...So, who/what is the audit, auditing?

If church shares are being sold, and re-sold with no backing, and after the expiration, this is a problem all by itself. I'm not sure what the fallback position would/could be. Refund and re-issue?

Thanks, this helps me alot, but also raises more questions.

Hey Harley, I know you don't think there's a connection between KS and PTRZ.

But tell me, what are your thoughts on PTRZ's purpose? Don't mean to beat the horse until death, but if KS actually bought ASWD, and it turned into PTRZ, but wasn't a merger, what was the point?

I know what you think about Petro, and again I cannot disagree, but I'm looking for your technical perspective on this.

I'm not sure what the company size, or revenue levels are, but the difference between tiers are size of companies, and revenues produced.

As far as extraction processes are concerned, that's way beyond me. I still think people "pan" for gold. :)

I appreciate the constructive discussions also, no matter what side people are on, because I generally learn something one way or the other, and get insight to different types of perspectives.

I enjoy a good debate, and can respect an opinion I may not agree with.

When I say reporting, I'm talking about KS and PTRZ. Because even if the two aren't merged, PTRZ isn't reporting, and they are controlled by KS or at least Owen. I think you wrote your aquistitions guy said the RM wasn't complete and could be unwound, but if it weren't complete ASWD shouldn't have gotten a new symbol and listed. At any rate, this is what I mean by reporting.

After an RM, the new company must register with the SEC, and the SEC doesn't approve registrations that quickly (3 weeks), they take a couple of months, give or take. The RM alone can take a couple of months.

Though IPO's take even longer and are costlier, I think I would spend the money and go this route. The share price would benefit greatly, and would present a security with more cache'.

I'm not sure what all the other companies are for, maybe they're trying to find one that will be easiest to clean.