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.
No steveo never did.....I was not holding my breath on that one.
I did give him a shot a double or nothing, but he didn't accept.
Court case set back another 49 days....AGAIN.
Mike. Since you are intent on defending yourself, which I'm good with, would you please disclose your trading activity on MOSH yesterday.
If you have nothing to hide, then that shouldn't be a problem.
If you chose to act on your own opinion and sold, did you do so before or after you posted?
After the error was corrected, do you buy back in if you had sold or did you buy additional shares?
In the interests of full disclosure, I didn't notice the activity until after most of the price had recovered, so i didn't get any of the cheap shares. Too bad for me. I did buy 3000 shares at .32.
Steady_T
Actually we are in a slightly stronger position today....The motion for immediate oral arguments was denied. That indicates the judge is less likely to rule infavor of the defendants.
Not a big thing, but still an indication in our favor.
Steady_T
I have several observations from reading all of this about todays activities.
1. This must be a very thinly traded stock for a few messages on RB and Ihub to cause the sort of price action we saw today.
2. The MM's were very happy to see the panic and amplify it by dropping the bid to catch any stops out there. It is an old MM trick. The deep V shape of the chart tells the story on that.
3. Nobody has stopped to think about how mistakes are caught and corrected. If Mike was indeed the first to call and got the incorrect info, the folks who gave him that info thought that they were giving out the correct info. Mike thought that he was given the correct info.
Only after people started to call and check did someone who knew bettter notice that the info was incorrect. The correct info was passed along to the court staff and subsequent callers got a different answer to the same questions that Mike asked earlier. No one lied, either time.
This is not rocket science.
If you make your investment decisions on info from a web board without doing your own checking, then you have no one but yourself to blame for your results.
In the real world Caca Occurs.
By the way, this is in no way different from what happened to Bear Sterns with rumors spreading that it was in deep Kim Chi prior to anything actually happening. The rumors resulted in a run on the deposits, which actually did put Bear in deep Kim Chi.
There was a lot of manipulation of the tape today.....there were 400K of cancled transactions that showed up on Alphatrade......Amazingly enough they were the two big trades at .08 of 165K each and a few others.
Can you say shake?
I have no idea what the price will be. I am a bit more skeptical of the certainty of the results from the courts.
I agree that there is a good case. But whenever a court is involved there are no guarantees of results, no matter how good the case looks going in.
The jury, if it gets that far, might not understand the case and award small amounts for example.
The judge might indeed find that the standing issue is correct and dismiss the case against PDX and Woodside, whereupon we would have to solve the trustee issue first before we have a chance to refile against them.
Or, we could win the preliminarys and there could be a settlement to our liking. We could wind up going all the way to a verdict and get the seriously big bucks.
While I like the odds on the situation and have bought a position to await the outcome, I don't see this as the certainty that many posters here do.
Many investors can short pennies.....Most won't because, first of all think that they can't, just like you. Second for retail clients you have to post $2 per share to short a penny.
Check the rules at TD Ameritrade.
Correction to previous post " as you move West the number of bad wells to good increases."
Sorry for not catching that prior to posting.
There is just one problem with that analysis. CB has not exercised his right to convert, so at this point he still owns the same 2% he did before.
He could own 35% IF he exercises his right to convert.
The main problem is that AMEP hasn't drilled a well that is a large money maker.
I have family land in the Ft. Worth Barnett Shale. We have 12
wells within 1 mile.
There have been 2 that didn't make a well. 1 that has been a lousy producer and didn't make back costs. 2 that are very good wells, and the rest somewhere in between.
This is from the tier 1 Barnett Shale. As you move further West the number of good wells to bad increases. The AMEP Barnett is not nearly as productive as the shale zone to the East.
The driller on our property tells me that in our area the odds of a hole that doesn't make are 20 to 25%, the odds that you get a well that just makes back costs are about 25%. The truly great wells are about 20%.
So if the odds get worse as you go West to where AMEP is then the odds of CB hitting a major well less than 50%, more like 20 to 30% , at least for the Barnett Shale.
That also helps put our drilling successs, or lack there of, into perspective.
Under the present circmstances, keeping the doors open counts as success.
As long as the doors are open there is a future.
If in a year that is all that the comany has going for it, I would not define it as success.
Context counts.
I'll pass on that bet.
As I said, CB has given folks enough material to criticize him on.
I have my own frustrations with the situation. I understand why others are frustrated also.
I have no problem with reasoned criticisms. Although it is not clear to me what benefit accrues from rehashing the same ones over and over again.
You guys seem to forget about rule 144 that says CB can only sell 1% of the class of shares outstanding in a quarter or 1 weeks volume in a 4 week period.
So if CB were to convert his pfds to common, it will take him quite a while to sell all of his shares.
So why don't you guys quit flogging that scenerio. It can't happen.
Oh that's right, you guys aren't concerned with reality, you concerned with bad mouthing CB in any way you can.
CB has given you guys enough real things to complain about that you should have to make stuff up.
His common shares were RS'd just like everyone elses. What didn'r get RS'd were his options to convert his PFDs. SHould he choose to convert those he would have 35% or so of the outstanding shares.
He is on record as saying that he will not convert his pfd's in the near future.
The Bid is .32 the ask is .36
If you want to get a fill, pay the ask.
IRS rules say that unless you tell you broker to sell a specific lot of shares in advance of the sale, it is assumed for cost basis calculations that you are using FIFO.
You are required to have a copy of the letter or email that you sent to the broker for specific lot sales.
JPM was willing to step aside and allow the suit against PDX and Woodside because they were being released from liability to the trust.
Now that has been denied they will reconsider their position. They were willing to pay out the legal expenses of the unit holders that brought suit for the privilege of being released from liability.
JPM wants out as trustee and wants to released from liability. So far nothing that has transpired has removed the potential liability from JPM.
For the moment, I consider that fact the most relevant piece of information in terms of understanding the potential of various outcomes.
Consider that if the trial goes foreward with just JPM as the lone defendant, and they lose, JPM will then have to institute proceeding against PDX and Woodside to recover as much of the damages that JPM has to pay out. Not a pretty future for JPM.
I'm new to this stock. Have been reading about the court case and reading this board.
Congrats on the very nice run up from .10.
I have only seen on reference to the proposed setlement that mentions that the new trustee will have a clean slate and will make a fresh determination as to whether to proceed with the suits against the other companies.
For me, a person that has not bought in yet, that suggests a wait and see till the trustee makes that decision. The tone of the borad suggests that it is considered a forgone conclusion that the trustee will decide to go forward with the suits. Do I have this right?
Steady_T
look up the 1934 stock act for all publicly traded companies.....Doesn't matter if they are on the Pinks, greys,NYSE, etc. Any company that is publicly traded has minimum filing requirements. As you move up in quality of exchanges the rules tighten. Many of the tighter rules come from the exchanges themselves rather than the SEC.
Merry Chritmas to ALL.
Nice to see the price runnning up. Last trade at .45 as od 10:05 CST on vol of 102,580.
A little stocking stuffer for us all.
Howard, Merry Christmas to you. Hope to see you next trip of to AENP.
Steady_T
As a royalty owner in several wells I can tell you that I would not likely answer a question from a stranger about my well production or what we are being paid for gas.
I will discuss that info with royalty owners of other wells in the area if those people are known to me.
They appear to be different.
The pattern of lightening holes in the tail ribs is different.
They have changed the caption on the still pictures.
"Below are pictures and video of the December 13, 2007 flight test of SAS-51 and additional graph data."
A tempest in a tea pot.
wahaw14. You must know nothing about insider trading regulations.
Gees guys. The photos were obviously mislabeled.
Considering that the third picture shows the vehicle itself in the picture it makes it pretty obvious these picture were taken from the top of a tall building. Probably all taknen it the same time including the main one showing the vehicle against the campus background.
My guess is that the correct picture will be on the web site soon.
MPDanford. You are most welcome. I wish that we had more data to share.
JC used an analogy that the BDC process caused us to become dead in the water. That was resolved, the boilers have been re-lit. It takes a bit of time to get steam pressure up and start the screws turning. From there you get up to speed.
We are in that process. That is pretty vague, but it seems to convey the situation.
Mdhas55. I'm sorry that you are down that much.
Lets hope that you can get it back plus some.
Demanding information out of people is not going to help you get it.
Freemarket has paid for his trip and expenses to come down from NY and is spending 4 days to look around. If he wants to share any info he gathers, it's a gift to the rest of us. He pay the expenses, we don't.
I did see 11 and 12. The Phantom rig was no where to be seen.
I can see the puns coming from that line. I did ask about it's location and activities and was not given any information about it.
I mentioned the comunication vacuum to JC. I did ask about the BOD. The are looking for people that have the time to devote to the company and the right skill sets.
I did not sign a disclosure agreement. I didn't receive any info that would require one.
There was a pupmjack running on the 12 well. There was a pumpjack on the 11 well that was being worked on.
I was with the group of three investors that went out with JC yesterday and toured the well sites.
We saw most wells with pumpjacks pumping away. Two wells were im maintenance mode. WE saw several older wells that had been converted into injection wells to provide onsite disposal of water.
The Challeneger rig is still in the yard. The Phantom was not to be seen.
On point of discussion that kept coming up was the amount of hostility on the various boards and how ay information given out was ridiculed and used to hurt the company.
It seems that there are posters on some boards that actively do things to hurt the comapny.
Freemarket is going to stay in Mineral Wells for several more days and hopes to meet with CB. CB was not available yeaterday.
My overall impression is slow progress and things are moving forward.
We received little hard inforamtion and nothing that could be considered insider information.
Let the slamming begin.
Free... How long are you going to be in town. I live in Arlington, TX about 100 miles up the road. I'd like to come to weatherford and meet with you and CB.
Tom
Not exactly a Draconian punishment is it?
Cole Dude.... You don't know what you are talking about.
Can you describe the effects of shooting at an non level target on the trajectory of a bullet? Please feel free to discuss the case of uphill and down hill shots seperately.
If the vehical is overhead, it is an easy shot. But, if the vehical is at 3000 ft alt and 3000 ft horizontal distance, the shot requires some serious firepower. Most non radar guided AAA use tracer rounds to facilitate the aiming.
Are you postulating automatic weapons using tracers?
How many folks do you think have 50 cal rifles to be shooting at aerosats?
wonderful theory, based on no facts. Proceeds to a predetermined outcome.
Station keeping for many days at a time is what border survailence is about. That precludes using non-electric fueled vehicles.
A far as being shot at by folks on the border; You would want the vehicle some distance inside the border for several reasons. First you really don't want to look straight down, you want to be looking at an angle. That way you can see much more detail about your survalence target. Second, you don't want your ship to cross over the border if something goes wrong. You want some place to bring it down on your side of the border.
Imagine how difficult a shot it would be to hit a target 3000 ft up and 1 to 5 miles horizontal distance away. Without tracers, you would have no idea how close you are to a hit.
I'm pretty sure that sensors on board would be able to tell if the vehicle was being shot at. Either acoustic sensons listening to the shockwave from a bullet or hearing the sound of a bullet hitting the envelope. If that were the case, the vehicle would start looking for the shooter, He'd have to be reasonably close. I'm sure that after a few folks were caught for shooting at the vehicle, that sort of thing would drop off in frequency. There are systems being used in Iraq that can tell the dirction a bullet comes from by acoustic triagulation.
A problem that would be made very much easier by the large size of the vehicle. By placing the acoustic sensors far apart you get much greater accuracy, and aerostats are big.
The biggest problem I see with using these things is dealing with storms. Historically, that is what destroyed most LTA ships.
I think you are in error in you value for lead acid battery storage capacity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_polymer_battery
The link is of a Li-ploy battery which is 1/3 the weight of a lead acid for a given capacity.
They show 130-200 Whr per KG of battery weight.
That is consistant with my experience in flying electric RC planes with a Li-poly battery.
The problem is no different that that faced by the Mars Rovers....You have X amount of energy in from the sun on a good day, you set up an energy budget to use what you think you can and still leave enough in the bateries for a few bad days.
Inverter technology has gotten quite good. You can buy compter power supplies that are 85% efficient. If you are willing to pay more, they get more efficient.
notall survalence is about getting in and getting out,like the SR71 was used for.
There are all sorts of situations where station keeping is more desirable. Border survailence seems to be good example
-Nobody seems to consider that these were seperate divisions, companies that had been acquired as I understand it. As such I'd expect them to have their own accounting systems, bank accounts etc.
The numbers were for revenues, there should have been expenses to go along with them. We don't know if the revenues were expected to be enought to offset the expected expenses.
We also don't know what, if any, net profit was expected to show up at the home office. For all we know, the plan was to operate at breakeven to acquire market sahre. If so the home office would expect no monies to be sent up to it, but they would expect to see the billing numbers going up and expenses to go up with them.
The above is just a guess as a possible reason for how things went for 8 qrts. In a way that would make sense.
This might have no relationship to what really went down. But, since we are operating without hard information, you can make up all sort of scenarios to fit the limited info alvailable.
S
Or like many such scam artists, he is quite good at covering his tracks.
I suspect that the SEC won't remove GTEM from scrutiny until they are convinced that Joe et al. were not working with higher ups in the company. And that is as it should be.
His letter of resignation said he had been board member for 2 years. That's not a short time.