hillzman, the more recent updates we have received are more important than a barrel count. Read here for why...

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=31183951

Then the simple solution for you, duelittle, is to use the A/S count. Some investors do this. But, in my example, the price is so low it doesn't matter if the last o/s is used or the a/s. In either case, just the assets Hemi has stated in PR print is higher.

Ok, duelittle, how much value did you yourself put on the WY lease? Was it $100k, $250k, more? Or was it less? I venture to say it was less because you obviously placed value on their core KS leases and equipment which, at the time of the sale, I believe exceeded by itself the market cap of the company. So, by simple math, that makes ZERO value placed on the WY lease by investors. Not a difficult concept there, duelittle.

Point being, Hemi recently sold a lease which had little value placed on it by investors for what is now nearly the entire marketcap. NOBODY expected that. Are you going to argue this point with me?

How can the asset value of Hemi diminish in the eyes of the investor when the investor placed little to no value on it anyway??? You're talking out both sides of your mouth... you are trying to say the WY lease had great value while at the same time Hemi has nothing. LOL! But, I'll play your game... the sale of the WY lease will only devalue Hemi if the $475k is used to buy BMWs and fur coats. If the money is put into the company and that money then creates additional assets AND revenue, then the value does not diminish and instead grows. Come on due, you know this.

Good question, plastipunk. I have my thoughts based upon a number of different pieces of information, opinions, and previous experience. Some of the info I have is difficult to prove so I'll not go into it. But, let me ask you this... do you think it makes sense for Hemi to have a market cap of roughly $600k when they sold just one of their less desirable leases (and they have many leases in at least 5 states) for $475k cash in bank? If you use the closing bid price, the market cap is barely above this cash in hand sale amount. Factor in a ND lease with some surrounding leases valued at nearly 3 times the current market cap and it makes even less sense. Now, factor in that repairs to just some of the leases in KS was in excess of $1mil and it makes even less sense. i.e., if you wreck your car and the insurance performs $5k worth of repairs to your car then one should expect the car to be worth at least $5k.

Point being, there are several cases where, even when looked at individually, the price should not be where it is. I've seen some big board stocks with a market cap below their hard assets but with Hemi I see the situation as ludicrous. Oh, the big board stocks did recover and started trading at a price that would be considered more "normal" and I expect Hemi to do the same.

I've now answered or at least tried to answer two of your questions. How about my question now?

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33594333

Thanks!

Hemi liquidated a lease that nobody placed any value on anyway. If they liquidate another one that has zero value in the eyes of "the street" then how can that be considered bad or hurt investors? Let me see... it is given no value in the market and Hemi sells it for what is now well over 50% of the market cap of the company. Since it had no value, that's like having money growing on trees! LOL!

You make the statement of fact...

"The pps has tanked so far now that selling off assets is the only way to pay the bills now."

Just curious... can you back up that statement of fact in court if called upon to do so? Keep in mind... Investors expect companies to be truthful in their statements of fact, can companies not also expect and demand the same of investors? Slanderous statements of fact made against a company are a big no no if it is really just an opinion. Be careful. :)

That depends, plastipunk, on the circumstances and what is being talked about as well as the facts at hand. Example... if a moderator called me a female, I'd feel very comfortable replying back calling them a liar. That's clear cut. Others items are not so it is not really possible for me to give you a yes/no answer to your question because I don't know the details.

You've asked me a question now I'll ask you one... do you think a moderator of a "Friendly" board going to a specific stock board creating a post which the sole and only purpose is to "poke" another moderator in the eye or "make fun of them" like you'd expect grade school children to do, projects an image the other Friendly stock board moderators would approve of? A Friendly stock board where people don't air out dirty laundry and instead talk about making money and avoiding bad mistakes is the image I'd think the other moderators would want all their leaders to project. Agree or disagree?

Hey Jag, looks like you are having a little trouble with the ole reading comprehension again :)

What you said I said...

"I think it was really nice of zguy to come over here and explain why it's really stupid to think Pinkie companies can be successful long term......."

What I actually wrote...

"I tend to agree, Realperson. While I don't always think it is the fault of the company, there are too many other factors, like lack of regulation and enforcement, which makes pink sheet stocks more "risky" for longer term holding."

Please read more carefully as you can tend to make yourself look a bit silly when you don't. :)

Closer to 20%, plastipunk.

I tend to agree, Realperson. While I don't always think it is the fault of the company, there are too many other factors, like lack of regulation and enforcement, which makes pink sheet stocks more "risky" for longer term holding.

Delusional investor flag #2.

Purchasing a pink sheet stock expecting to be able to get immediate updates, at your whim, on the share structure. 99% of pink sheet stocks provide share structure updates at the leisure of the CEO. Probably just 1% make share info available on a daily basis to investors. That doesn't make the 1% who do completely legit nor the 99% who do not all scams... it's just the way it is. Being fooled into thinking it is normal to have share structure info of a pink sheet stock available like that of a big board stock makes for a delusional investor.

However, because this is the case, many pink sheet CEOs do use this facet of pink sheet stocks to take advantage of investors which is why it is important for investors wanting to purchase pink sheet stocks to look at how shares were used previously for that company.

New investor tip: Don't buy pink sheet stocks if you are one who requires to know the share structure each day.

Delusional investor flag #1.

(Only because you guys are having so much fun!)

An investor purchasing a known pink sheet stock for hopes of pink sheet gains while at the same time expecting and/or demanding big board financial reporting. While I would think those who buy pink sheet stocks realized this, apparently not. If you are one who does, sorry to be master of the obvious.

New investor tip: If an investor requires financial reports then the investor needs to invest in OTCBB or higher type stocks. It is really quite simple and will help keep you in your comfort zone... do not purchase pink sheet stocks if you are one who requires financial reports.

Correction, duelittle, Hemi did not sell an asset to "stay afloat" as you put it. Hemi sold an asset to more rapidly be able to do an expensive drill. In case you missed the last couple PRs, enough oil is being sold to "stay afloat". :)

And it seems that while Fox News is definitely less biased, they still aren’t hammering him on much of the crap he is spewing. Obama’s spin of what he plans to do and McCain/Fox News not attacking him or even questioning him is amazing. Maybe McCain is saving these type things until the very last minute? I can only hope because if not, WHY is he not bringing up things that are obvious to many?

Obama continuously talks along the lines of “I will not raise YOUR taxes if you make less than $250,000”. He talks about that in a singular context (your) most all the time so even if you believe he won’t, he is outright misleading the American people because that number is for a married couple and NOT an individual tax payer… the individual tax payer is, of course, less. Why he can say this over and over and McCain not even bring it up is amazing to me.

Obama also talks about going back to the taxes when Clinton was in by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. HELLO!?!? The brainwashed liberals who keep saying “Yeah, we need to do that so the ‘rich’ pay more!!!” need to pay more attention to what they wish for. This will raise taxes for everyone and not just the "rich".

Just look at the facts. I’ve copied below the tax tables from 1999 and 2007 for a single person. If you are a hard working middle class or even “poor” person, just look at what Bush has been doing for YOU. The majority of the voting population is led to believe that Bush has only ever helped the “rich”. One has to only look at the numbers to see that this is not the case and the tax cuts put in by Bush very much helped everyone and not just the people better off. Allowing them to expire like Obama wants not only raises the percentage the wealthy pay but also significantly raises what the low and middle class pays as well. So, again, Obama says what he needs to get elected and for whatever reason, the truth isn’t getting out.

2007 under Bush

$0 - $7,825 = 10% of the amount over 0$
$7,825 - $31,850 = $782.50 + 15% of the amount over $7,825
$31,850 - $77,100 = $4,386.25 + 25% of the amount over $31,850
$77,100 - $160, 850 = $15,698.75 + 28% of the amount over $77,100
$160,850 - $349,700 = $39,148.75 + 33% of the amount over $160,850
$349,700 and above = $101,469.25 + 35% of the amount over $349,700


1999 under Clinton

$0 - $25,700 = 15% of the amount over $0
$25,750 - $62,450 = $3,862.50 + 28% of the amount over $25,750
$62,450 - $130,250 = $14,138.50 + 31% of the amount over $62,450
$130,250 - $283,150 = $35,156.50 + 36% of the amount over $130,250
$283,150 and above = $90,200+39.6% of the amount over $283,150

So, setting aside deductions and just using the tax tables, if you made $50,000 under Clinton you paid taxes of $10,652.50. If you made $50,000 under Bush last year, your taxes were $8,923.75. This is 19% higher taxes for a “middle class citizen” under Clinton in 1999 than what the same income earner would pay last year under Bush.

You hear all this talk by the liberal media about how Bush has given breaks to the “rich” far and above anything he has done for the poor and middle class. Huh? Last I checked, 35% taxes is still a hell of a lot more than 15% taxes or none at all yet, somehow, it is spun to make the higher income earners look like they don’t pay squat by the left wing media.

If Obama does get in (and I still think there is hope he won’t) the people will have got what they wanted but not realize what they actually got. Sad.

Those of you with certs would find your names on such a list. Those whose shares are held in street name would not, but the total held by the clearing firms would be there.

Ding ding ding ding! Problem starts with the part in bold. Companies (Enron ring a bell?) cook the books with ungodly amounts of money which goes unnoticed... you really think all MMs, clearing houses, brokerages, etc. don't practice a little of the same? Come on now. There is major money in corruption in stock trading. You're one of the very few who thinks there isn't.

So, Manti, you really think that a company can request from say E*Trade, how many shares are in each person's account? You'd be OK with Keith calling up and knowing how many shares YOU had (assuming he knew your name)?

Do you know for a fact this can be done or is this another one of your assumptions/opinions that you are presenting as fact... again?

Due, I'm not so sure it is that easy for a company to figure out how many shares are out there. I do believe they know how many share holders there are but do not know how many shares each share holder has (possibly due to privacy issues?). I could be wrong and if I am, somebody please correct me, but that is how I've understood it.

And thus, part of the reason why everything is so corrupt as you mention... because they are allowed to be! It shouldn't be so hard, if not impossible, for a company to determine this... but it is!

I think you missed my point about it, Due. There is a difference between 300 or 500 shareholders (for example) having all the shares plus 20mil more as compared to ONE person having all the shares plus shareholders still holding millions.

You can't coordinate getting all shareholders together in a large group effort because when only 50%, for example, participate, it doesn't work. But, if just one person (Hemi!) has all the shares or at least most of them then it becomes simple to prove the point and the manipulation because you need only a handful of the million+ shareholders to be your "group" to prove the problem.

If Hemi bought air shares, no problem and even better!

Main point that I guess you didn't get is that it is nearly impossible to prove what is thought to be going on when there are hundreds of shareholders but put the entire o/s in the hands of 10 people or less (which would NOT be difficult if the price stays here and downright EASY if they drop it much more) and now the PROOF that is needed is there. Hard to obtain the proof from 300, easier if 30, and down right simple if just 3. That's the point.

I disagree, duelittle. They can't make it SO ridiculous that it becomes easy and a no brainer for the company to just buy the rest of the shares in the open market. Even with a market cap of 1mil it could be difficult IMO for Hemi to buy all the shares. However, at some of the prices being talked about, and even above, it becomes EASY for Hemi to just buy the stock with spare cash in the bank.

I'm normally against share buy back type programs by a company where the intent is to help the investor because rarely does it work. It doesn't work because if the company is able to buy back say 5% of the shares, it causes only a temporary short term increase in the share price and then the shorting continues and you end up right back where you were. I've said before that I thought it better for the company to put the money towards increasing production and assets but at some point, and we are about there, I think it DOES make sense and damn good sense for the company to start buying back shares so long as they can do so without greatly affecting their budget and plans for continued growth of the company. Why my "mood" on this has changed is because while I don't see the typical small percentage buy back being beneficial for investors, if this share price stays where it is or drifts a little lower as you and some others are suggesting, it is no longer a small percentage that can be bought but a large percentage or even MOST of the shares can be bought by the company easily. Think about it, due, the company PRd back when the share price was around .12 or .13 that the market cap IS substantially below conservative book value evaluations. So, if the company could sell 5% of its assets to buy 100% of the total "perceived" value of the company, that makes sense. Heck, they just sold something that didn't have value to "the street" which would buy well over 50% of the available float... and probably way over that. Let's sell another lease that "the street" considers worthless and that we won't likely use in the future and buy ALL the stock out there. Based on DD done by more than just a couple on this board, I think the ND lease could be sold and less than 50% of the proceeds used to buy all the remaining stock that insiders don't already own!

Imagine the press release... "Over the past 3 months, Hemi Energy has used their additional cash, not set aside for planned growth, to purchase all remaining shares not currently held by management or insiders. In additional to purchasing all remaining shares, the last order of 1mil has somehow executed as well. Based upon the amount of shares held by Hemi, there should be no shareholders left of Hemi Energy. However, if you still hold Hemi shares in your account, you are asked to immediately contact our lawyers at xxx with the details of your HMGP holdings. We will be personally talking with Mr. xxx in two weeks to resolve this situation."

I don't see the MMs allowing something like that to easily happen.

due, MMs are arrogant and ballzy but not stupid. I don't see them taking the share price to a point where Keith could sell his pick-up truck and buy the rest of the shares, do you? I hope you too don't see that as being reasonable.

PinkElephant, I'm not hiding behind anything as it appears you are implying.

So, let me get this straight... you think it reasonable and understandable to suggest a market cap of roughly $100k when they just put $450k CASH in the bank? Do you even know how much a basic pump jack or tank costs and that you could take a sawzall and hack out a fraction of the equipment Hemi owns and sell it for more than that?

You think it unreasonable for me to say I think it is "laughable" to have a market cap of what we do at $0.02 when the insurance claim BY ITSELF is equal to near that market cap coupled with the fact an asset that many likely considered had little to no value was just sold for around 40% what the market is considering the value of the company? That's a pretty damn good chunk of money for something that isn't and wasn't even being factored into the value of Hemi by the market.

Like I've said in the past, the stock price is what it is but that does not mean that I have to believe it is reasonable or justified. If you'd like to harp on me and stick up for those who make comments about the company having a $100k market cap then I guess that's your business. If you think I'm "hiding" behind fundamentals because I don't follow the belief that a $100k market cap is a reasonable suggestion for Hemi then, yeah, we'll continue to have our differences.

No, I didn't, PinkElephant. I said something more along the lines that a price below .02 would be laughable... and I still agree with what I said. The current market cap is ludicrous when considering just the known assets.

(BTW, I did happen to see your last similar comment on this to me before it was deleted)

Arkait, do you even realize what you are saying? LOL! At that price you could buy ALL the shares in the company with a fraction of the cash they just got and still have several hundred thousand in the bank. Or, leave the money in the bank and sell a handful of pump jacks to cover the cost of buying ALL the shares and still have all the rest of the assets. Heck, at that price, Keith could probably sell one Hemi truck and buy all the rest of the shares in the company that himself and management don't already own... and that makes sense to you?

Companies with several billion shares and zero or few assets trade at a price like that. Damn, the cars in my garage would be worth almost more than what you think the entire company is worth. So from another angle and again, does trying to say the company is worth around $100k when they just put $450k in the bank make one bit of sense to you?

And, I just gotta know... what method or line of thinking did you use to determine .0016??? That's a weird number for an estimation so you must have based that on some logical line of thinking but I'm baffled as to what!

Nice post, mortgage1.

I personally don't think the new SEC rules will matter much and probably not any in this market. What happens in many of these stocks (not just HMGP) was not allowed and against the already existing rules yet these rules were bypassed and avoided. So, when existing rules aren't even followed, not sure why people think that all of a sudden things will change and a new rule will now miraculously start being followed.

I don't see the SEC helping these smaller companies. The SEC has known of this huge problem for quite some time (and even acknowledges its existence) but admits it "can't" be fixed entirely because it'll cause a collapse of the brokerages when they are forced to replace air shares with real shares. Imagine that... they'll go broke if they have to pay back all the money they basically stole. Amazing, ain't it? They'll all pretty much in bed with each other from what I've seen so a big massive "fix" of the problem isn't going to happen.

Anyway, for those who do believe a large short positions exists, and I'm one of those, it is not a problem that will be fixed by the SEC with a new rule. It is a problem that Keith will have to address and fix himself. My opinion on the matter: I think he is on the right track to fixing this for the investors. He first needs to do what he is and has been doing... keeping expenses down and remaining debt free. Debt and the requirement to issue shares to keep the doors open is what short MMs rely on to drive small companies into nonexistence. We have neither of these problems a short MM relies so much on. Second, he needs to continue to grow the company and increase production. The increased production will allow for a larger "buffer" of money. This extra money can then be used to directly and specifically go after areas/entities which it appears he has already identified. Extra money also allows you to look into areas not yet identified. Fixing a problem like this takes time and money.

As for the t-trades, they are definitely a mystery but like I said months ago, with each passing day and each time we see a multi hundred thousand t-trade, it lends more credibility to the belief these are not actual trades but some accounting mechanism for some trades that happened during the day. These number around 25mil at this point. People need only use common sense. 1) These are such a mystery that you can't have 50 different people each with say a half mil shares all individually and separately doing something odd causing these prints nobody can really explain. 2) I think most will agree no one person has 25mil shares for which to do this with. 3) Since the volume is so great, they aren't actual shares. 4) Shares have gone out here and there to service people, land owners, many groups like that over the last couple years but do all these farmers, land owners, and well drillers/service providers have weird connections directly with MMs that allow them to oddly sell their shares? Yeah right. 5) No shares have been issued directly to MMs or by some other means directly into the market... which is what these t-trades sometimes indicate. But, even those who do believe it is the company issuing shares directly into the market (and it has been put in legal press releases a number of times that it is not) at some point will agree the volume is just too great for that to be a plausible explanation and will begin leaning towards what the company said months ago... some form of accounting for trades which occurred during the day. The question I have is for what reason and why? I think they are related to shorting but many other pinks are shorted too so why don't they consistently see AH prints as well? People say the cert drive didn't work but these AH prints started showing up at the same time as millions of shares of certs were requested. Hmmm? The large number of cert requests may not have done anything to affect the share price but may have caused something behind the scenes to happen? At any rate, I hope Keith decides to take a little of this discretionary/disposable income that I think he'll have in the future and get a detailed answer to these late prints.

The Cliff Notes version of above is I don't think a new SEC rule will do much to help HMGP (but the SEC may help in methods described earlier by Kels) and Hemi will need to help themselves out of this situation. I think they have set up a good base and are on the way to fix the problem but it takes time and money. The good news for us is that once it is fixed I see somebody else paying a lot more to get me my shares I've been buying this whole time :)

Nice post, Kels. To expand on your last sentence of...

"And yes, and most importantly, this transaction allows Hemi to remain Debt Free, expanding the current HMGP operation and provide increased value to the overall assets of Hemi."

I've seen the more negative group attempt to twist the part of the PR which indicated this sale allows them to "remain" debt free. Hemi has PR'd they are debt free and cash flow positive and have been debt free and cash flow positive from the sale of oil, meeting all normal operating expenses, since the beginning of the year. BUT, can they remain debt free AND have a more aggressive drilling program from the production of oil? My guess is the production of oil, while providing for enough funds for normal operations, may not allow them to be as aggressive in their drilling plans as they'd like to be. In order to not issue more shares at these crazy low prices and remain debt free but still do the more expensive drilling they'd like to do, they sold a WY lease. That is my take on the context of "remain" and not the negative spin some may try to put on it.

imshredin2, not sure why you are trying to relate t-trades to the ability to pay bills when it has been PRd many times the company has nothing to do with nor has any knowledge of the t-trades.

Profit is down no doubt from when oil was at its high but we are still a long ways away from a price to where it is no longer profitable. I first started buying this stock when oil was only around $50 a barrel and it was more than worthwhile to drill and pump then too.

I just got another 50k but they didn't fill it instantly like they did for you guys.

Yes, I would agree. Didn't mean to make it sound like that is all I thought they were worth. Just pointing out that we have several "pieces" of the company which I do believe would be conservatively valued, individually, higher than the current market cap.

Thanks for clarifying!

REAZO... want another "Wow"?

Current market cap is roughly equal to the amount spent to fix the equipment damaged during the floods. Obviously, not all equipment was damaged or needed repair either.

So what do we have? Looks like just the equipment is valued at the current market cap OR, just a lease or two are worth the current market cap OR, maybe just the already published reserves alone are worth the current market cap. Hemi looks to have numerous little slices of their business which are individually worth the entire 'posted' current value of the company. Wow. :)

Hemi just got, in cash, a sum equal to over 1/3 of their total market cap for something nobody, or very few, put any value on to begin with.

Think about that for a minute.

For the crowd out there who likes to continually talk about Hemi's "dangling carrots"... $475,000 IN POCKET and after expenses, etc., is a damn nice carrot.

duelittle, I think most the larger shareholders realize what has been said a bit here and there... the market cap of Hemi is around that of a nice house. LOL!

I think most bigger guys realize that just the used "ebay value" of the pump jacks alone in KS are worth probably at least 1/2 the current market cap. Tanks ain't cheap and they've got a number of those too. I might not be far off in saying the equipment by itself is valued higher than the current market cap and I'd think most larger shareholders realize this so bailing at this price after you bought here, rode it all the way up and back down, just doesn't seem to fit for me.

Odd you are still after that line of thinking, Manti.

I chuckle a bit at how you talk so matter-of-factly even when you've already been proven wrong.

On May 27th you stated "Yup. Right on. The company is raising cash to pay for those wells they've promised to drill"
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=29596476

You stated it as a fact and not opinion (like you are doing again) but then just a couple weeks later Hemi states in a press release...

"These two virgin leases, the Weseloh and Driskell, have all necessary supplies in place. "

and

Neither Hemi nor Hemi's management have sold any shares in 2008 to the stock market and no market makers have been selling on the behalf of Hemi. Therefore, it continues to be Hemi's opinion that after hours postings are not shares being sold in volume but are predominately reporting of transactions of sales made during the day. Hemi continues to be cash flow positive and has more than sufficient funds to complete the three oil wells being developed in Kansas, and therefore has no need to sell shares to fund normal daily operations.

then states again in a following press release...

"Hemi has been cash flow positive for all of 2008 and continues to be cash flow positive from oil production. Hemi has more than sufficient funds on hand to complete the three new wells and all the supplies and equipment necessary for oil production from these wells. In addition to its budgeted funds, Hemi is also tanking oil as the price has risen the past several months."

I am really baffled at why you continue to state opinions as facts even after you've done it in the past and have been incorrect.

Peter_Griffin, your thoughts might not be far off. Most of the day's volume was at .02 and .021 with some at .019. The low of the day was .018 and I believe that only 5,000 went through at that price. And, it was one of those "standard" 5,000 share trades at the bid that went through about a minute after the bid was lowered to that price.

Our previous low was .015 on much less volume.

Whatever happened yesterday was odd, no doubt. But, doesn't matter if you are of the belief that it was "shifty" MM crap going on or somebody big just wanting out, SOMEBODY bought all those shares at a price higher than we've seen the last few days. Whether it was MMs scooping up the shares or somebody big wanting to buy through HDSN, the shares were bought up.

duelittle2, paid $0.025

I've had them give it to me cheaper before so know what you're talking about but don't see it too often in this one :)

I just did a little test buy of 1000 and it did show. Go figure.

Bought 20k at the ask of 0.025 about 6 minutes ago and it didn't show up on my time and sales and the current price is still isted at .023... but the shares did go to my account. Does anybody show 20k at .025 at 10:19 eastern?

Thanks!

LOL! I'm might be a jinx but you're not getting rid of me that easily :)

Nice post, mortgage1. Most of us don't like being patient. I know I don't. LOL! I was once too "itchy" to make a quick profit and sold a stock and lost many thousands of dollars. Soon after I sold, the reasons I bought the stock started to slowly happen. Roughly a year later, had I not sold, I would have been up more than $1mil. Still kick myself for that one and don't plan on doing that again. Hemi's assets continue to grow even though the share price has been declining. I think most of the emotion out there is based on the share price. There is enough verifiable PR'd information out there that makes this crazy undervalued just on assets and not even including potential. But that doesn't change the stock price. Like you said though, I don't see it taking much to get the price going back in the direction we'd like to see.

Exactly, Big Mur. And to add, I think all need to look beyond the payment from the settlement and instead look at it from a bit of a bigger picture...

The payment from the insurance company may come tomorrow, next month, next year, or they may never get it.. who knows with insurance companies. But, no matter what happens with this settlement, people should understand that greater than $1.2m is at stake. What this means is that more than $1.2m has already been invested in either upgrades or repairs in only the damaged wells in KS. At today's prices, that is just a bit less than HALF the total marketcap of Hemi! Not only does Hemi hold assets in multiple other states but not ALL assets were destroyed/needed replaced in the floods. So, to think that what did get repaired cost in excess of $1.2m for the repairs should make just those assets worth that at least that much. And, I'll add... insurance doesn't pay out on LAND... land is there forever. Insurance claims are against assets ON the land. Hemi had greater than $1.2m in repairs to just equipment on SOME of the leases in KS. This amount doesn't include the value of the land... only the cost in repairs to SOME of the equipment. It should be a no brainer that if it cost in excess of $1.2m to repair some of the equipment that the total value of just the KS equipment is much greater than $1.2mil.

This by itself should be a huge indicator of the value of just some of the Hemi assets on some of the leases in KS. This doesn't even include the asset value of the leases themselves in KS... or all the other states for that matter.

Manti, your post about HMGP is once again... not correct.

KAA has never said they weren't issuing shares. Please keep your facts straight and do not post misinformation about a company you are not interested and don't care about. What he has been saying is that neither Hemi's management nor Hemi Energy Inc have sold shares in the open market. In fact, they have issued a few PRs indicating the use of shares and what they were used for. So, please don't continue to spread incorrect information.

All the info about neither management or the company selling directly into the market was said so people would stop believing the AH prints were related to them... but even with MULTIPLE PRs indicating such, people such as yourself continue to post like you know differently. It would be nice if you are going to be a proclaimed HMGP expert that you would at least read the PRs so you can be more up to speed.

And, now that I see you're a chart expert and predicting support levels and future pricing, I assume that you are all out of "your" oil stock... that chart ain't pretty. Looks like support after it breaks to the low side during this downtrend is in the low .20s. Might have to pick me up a few there :)