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.
I agree. And MXXH and Tejones alluded to a lease on the Eagle Ford Shale.
Look how long it took them to drill clovelly when they announced it. It took them almost a year. We are approaching that now, so I expect them to do something soon.
There is a reason why you cannot get rigs in Texas these days. Eagle Ford has been hot the last 3 years and MXXH is the last on the totem pole to get a rig. Best to be in the rig business these days and not in the exploration biz.
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — Marathon Oil Corp. said Wednesday it plans to buy acreage in the liquids-rich Eagle Ford shale region of Texas in a deal valued at $3.5 billion, accelerating efforts to build up its exploration and production portfolio as the company moves forward to spin off its refining unit.
Houston-based Marathon /quotes/comstock/13*!mro/quotes/nls/mro MRO +0.10% will buy properties held by Hilcorp Resources Holdings, a partnership between affiliates of Hilcorp Energy Co. and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. LP /quotes/comstock/13*!kkr/quotes/nls/kkr KKR +0.58% . KKR said its stake in the deal is worth about $1.13 billion.
Shares of Marathon fell 2.8%. KKR rose 0.1%.
S&P Equity Research analyst Michael Kay upgraded Marathon Oil to buy from hold and said the spin-off will give the company more flexibility to ink more exploration and production deals to improve its growth rate.
The deal underscores energy companies’ attention focused on Eagle Ford shale, prized because of its liquids resources, which fetch higher market prices than so-called dry natural gas.
Along with other transactions expected to close by the end of 2011, its Eagle Ford acreage position in Texas is expected to more than double to 285,000 net acres, Marathon said.
“Marathon has captured a top-five acreage position in the core of the premier resource play in the U.S. since first entering the Eagle Ford in November,” said CEO Clarence Cazalot. “This transaction enhances our already strong North America position focused on unconventional, liquids-rich resource plays that provide low-risk, scalable and profitable growth.”
The deal will help Marathon increase its projected average production growth rate to 5% to 7% on a compound annual basis through 2016. Its earlier target was for growth of 3% to 5%.
Marathon will use cash on hand and cash generated from operations to pay for the deal, which is expected to close Nov. 1, with an effective date of May 1.
jaybot, read my post. You are correct, I just clarified the process and procedures you are referring to.
matoutus, I concur with you. Many reporting companies or "sec filers" usually do stock purchase agreements with attached plan of reorganization agreements.
Basically certain triggering items cause terms and conditions to occur all within on transaction, both concurrently and and consecutively.
What nxxi, fails to understand is that it is wise in non-filers to engage in stock purchase agreements and conduct reorg plans, acquisitions, or asset purchases after the transfer of control is complete.
In the event the selling shareholder fails to disclose material facts to the purchaser, it makes it much easier to unwind the transaction.
So after the share purchase is complete, and the terms of the agreement are met, escrow can close. There still can be remedies in place in the event material misstatements are discovered at a later date and after assets or other material business is merged in with the new company.
But for the short term, after clearing escrow, many companies will then enter into asset purchase agreements. Are they for free? No, never, and I do not think the company has alluded to the fact that they will be given to the shareholders for no consideration.
Only nxxi is inferring that people are saying that.
Today, Marathon Oil has agreed to spend $3.5 billion on leases in the Eagle Ford Shale region.
Marathon Oil did not announce that $3.5 billion worth of leases will be given to them.
nxxi, you really need to understand the legal mechanisms on what it takes to effect a merger and comply with the state and the SEC rules.
Additionally, you really need to study up on Securities Act of 1933 and understand what it takes to become a filer.
There are trigger events that occur and certain items must be done within certain time periods. These items take time and cost money.
A company needs to be prudent in when to enact a transaction and when to report it to maintain the integrity of the requirements under the "act".
You cannot make posts or statements not have any understanding of the "act" and what the company must do to become complaint.
If you have questions, ask.
I am responding to your post. Only fair as a two way discussion.
You mentioned I made a statement, but you fail to look at my punctuation. It clearly is a question mark, not a period.
Thus, you are in accurate in your posts.
Someone mentioned that TXOM/BNPD has leases in Eagle Ford Share. Can someone confirm that?
Eagle Ford Shale in play, huge acquisition by Marathon Oil $3.5 Billion in leases announced today.
BNPD will be in a good position with its soon to be acquired Eagle Ford Shale Property.
For those of you interested since NXXI wants to delete.
Marathon Oil announced a $3.5 Billion acquisition to buy acreage in the liquids-rich Eagle Ford shale region of Texas.
BNPD supposedly will have acreage in Eagle Ford.
This is extremely relevant as oil giants are gobbling up leases in Eagle Ford.
It validates even further certain leases to be owned by BNPD.
letme,
I am sure they got their new cusip back on the 20th. It is Finra they have to furnish the new cusip to along with board res. and amended articles before "Finra" can effect the symbol change.
It wont be before Friday. Finra requires a minimum of 10 days before approving. They will take more time if need, but if all the paper work is in order, they are pretty good about doing it on the 10th day. Even if the paperwork is not in order, they will give you until about the 7th day before they start postponing you.
So my guess is they have until today to get everything done to go effective Friday or Monday.
When it comes to Texas, the old saying is that everything is bigger in the Lone Star state. That certainly applies to the job market, which is booming in Texas and cratering in other states such as California. This piece from The Business Journals talks about the decade-long job surge in Texas versus California and other states. The piece also has an excellent state-by-state interactive table that can be sorted by several factors such as rank in new jobs [emphasis added]:
Texas has enjoyed an unequaled economic boom the past 10 years.
The inventory of private-sector jobs in Texas increased by 732,800 between April 2001 and the same month this year, according to an On Numbers analysis of new federal employment data.
No other state registered an increase of more than 100,000 private-sector jobs during the decade. Only 19 states and the District of Columbia posted any gains at all.
…California suffered the biggest decline during the decade. It had 623,700 fewer private-sector jobs last month than it did a decade ago. Michigan was next with a 10-year loss of 619,200 positions…
For bottom tier states such as California and Michigan, it’s not a pretty picture. California ranks 51st out of 51 (50 states plus Washington DC). Michigan is 50th out of 51.
As you can see, Texas has produced eight times the number of jobs as the number #2 state, Arizona. And, it has produced more jobs than all other jobs-producing states…combined. Now, that is dominance.
As I pointed out, California and Michigan have been the biggestg job losers over the past 10 years. At this point, it looks as though, each one may have turned the corner a bit. California added 211,800 jobs in the past year and Michigan added 75,800 new jobs. So, it may be that the bleeding has stopped, but neither one is likely to catch Texas as it added many more jobs in the past year — 251,700 — than did either California or Michigan. In short, when it comes to jobs, Texas is the real deal.
Kurt Brouwer's
Fundmastery Blog
It should be in the headers like a pr.
You don't have to sell the house to sell the mineral rights. But you might have to live with a christmas tree in your yard for 10 years.
matoutus, dont need to post the article OTC posted it this weekend. It is a great article that could be stickied here no?
Salad, your last sentence sounds right on.
Matoutus, Cusip does not assign symbols. Cusip stands for "Committee on Uniform Security Identification Procedures" and it is a product that is managed by Standard and Poors (S&P). The (or any company for that matter) must contact S&P and provide proof of the name change, pay a fee, and will be assigned a new Cusip Number.
Finra(NADS) assigns ticker symbols, only after it has had a minimum of 10 days to review the certified amended articles from the SOS office in the state the company was incorporated, along with the forms from S&P verifying a valid cusip before effecting the name change. Often S&P and Finra will collaborate via telephone to confirm that everything is in order.
Again, if they started this process the date they announced it, the earliest date they could be notified is Friday.
Nxxi, have some faith. This is a new entity going in and things maybe changing.
Give it a chance.
nxxi, if it is all one person or entity, they will convert as to not go over 10% and become an affiliate.
So at this point, only about 33 million can be converted.
35% of today's volume comes from blocks of 100,000 or more.
ace, I mentioned earlier that the NASD/Finra requires 10 trading days minimum to review certified amended articles as provided by the secretary of state of Nevada, as well as the documents provided by Standard and Poors on the new cusip number. They also require the shareholder vote or shareholder written consent by the majority of the shareholders(tricky one here as you can only have a couple shareholders adding up to more that 51% as too many may be construed as have been solicited for proxy), board resolutions, and any other additional supporting documents they request before they can complete the name change and ticker change.
IF all this was done and furnished the day they announced the name change, the earliest this can occur is Friday. You can go to www.otcbb.com and go to "today's Changes" and look at 430ish pm every day to see if BNPD is included in that list. I would not start looking until Thursday after the close.
fringe, that is not the problem. It is this that you said is the problem:
"I am sure we will get something scoopy outta that!"
If you and posters here receive information not made public to others and trade off of it to generate ill-gotten gains, then Gouger and everyone here who acted upon such information, well you get the picture.
Federal Sentencing guidelines are based on a point system. Points will be added up for Gouger being a officer and/or director of a public company. Points will be added for the amount of investors involved, points will be added based upon certain breakpoints on the dollar amount of ill-gotten gains. Since everyone will be wire transferring funds, additional charges of wire fraud will be added and additional points will be added.
More points = more years.
So yes, posts like yours must have Gouger cringing.
nxxi,
I would not un-gag the TA until they are prepared to disclose structure and explain the reasoning for it. Un-gagging the TA with nothing to support it would only cause additional questions, something the company is clearly not ready yet. I think in due time, it will all fall into place.
A time and place for everything nxxi.
Just my opinion, however.
fringe, I do not think your "friend, lunching with Gouger" is compliant with Reg FD.
I hope Gouger maintains integrity by not using your "friend" as a source to promote full and fair disclosure. Posting on this thread also does not qualify.
Here is what the SEC claims refers to as Reg FD:
"On August 15, 2000, the SEC adopted Regulation FD to address the selective disclosure of information by publicly traded companies and other issuers. Regulation FD provides that when an issuer discloses material nonpublic information to certain individuals or entities—generally, securities market professionals, such as stock analysts, or holders of the issuer's securities who may well trade on the basis of the information—the issuer must make public disclosure of that information. In this way, the new rule aims to promote the full and fair disclosure."
I am sure there is an entry into a material agreement in the works that will include an asset purchase agreement by and between the seller and Texas Oil and Minerals. It is expected to be at minimum 4 wells to start with. There is speculation it could be as many as 18 wells.
Some people here are using the words "assign" and "transfer". Both words refer to moving these assets into the company without consideration.
I would not listen to those people, they think someone is going to give them free oil wells.
But I would expect some asset purchase agreements soon that will substantiate some of what is being speculated.
Cascade, it is possible that the owner of the 4 or 18 wells have not sold it to BNPD yet and is currently not an asset of the company.
Once they are sold by the seller, and purchased by BNPD, the statements will subsequently reflect the purchase either with cash or stock and the assets will be listed on the balance sheet.
Ace, I wish you well.
:)
Ace, read the article that OTCbargains posted.
Note where it said $65 oil will impact companies financial ability to turn a profit.
Note the article(s) I posted. They mentioned the reason why we will have sustained $100 or higher, with lesser chances of sustained lower cost oil, such as $65.
If industry and economic factors push oil down to $65, the first article posted by OTC would indicate that companies like BNPD would have a difficult time making a profit.
You do realize that no profit usually reflect low stock prices.
But with geopolitical factors that are on the table right now smack in our face are proving that $100 oil is here to stay. This would generate good margins and potentially stellar profits for small explorers like BNPD.
I like believing in these factors and the company's chances based on these factors that the share price will continue to improve over the near, and mid-term.
I do not like believing that a cusip change takes this stock to $1. A cusip change is not worth $300million or $350million.
Vending in 18 wells will have a zero sum net on the balance sheet, as do all acquisitions by any public company. So it will not impact share value by an additional $450million as someone predicted $2.50 per share.
BUT, and a huge BUT, the vending in of the assets will have an intangible value that will justify trading on future valuation and then lend an enormous credibility to a share price increase based on those forward looking possibilities.
If the assets produce as predicted or better, increased shareholder value will only continue to rise. And that is what we are in business for.
I am not trying to be rude, I am trying to be realistic. Business are in business to produce a product or service, not to print paper. Only the Fed is in the business of printing paper.
otcbargains,
Great find. I found that article in real clear markets while you posted that. You beat me to it.
Eagle Ford Shale is already producing 100,000 bbl/day and could reach 425,000 in 4 years.
As long as oil stays at $100 or higher, Oil Explorers can break even in as little as 8 months. Which is quick.
Opportunities are abound and within our reach.
No, I do not hype or promote or create stock price predictions like many of you. I'll stick with business development and industry trends on how the company will grow and in turn cause for increased share prices.
I do not like to post a stock going to a certain price just because "I", "you", "he", "some people are saying", or an "email spam" said so.
Clearly, from the articles I posted, the Saudi Kingdom is using its oil to fund its country. And with its spending habits as of late, it needs oil to be above $85 per barrel to stay positive cash flow as a country.
Other Arab countries are in need of higher oil prices to deal with wars and deficits.
This means we will not see any sustained low price oil EVER in our future.
If these factors did not play into the global economy, sustained lower oil prices would severely impact the future potential to the bottom line and eventually the share price of BNPD.
In otherwords, sustained higher oil prices, with cut and dry higher prices in the near future only offer better margins and potential for small explorers such as BNPD.
Fundamental justification of increased share prices for BNPD is essential.
Otherwise Gouger, BNPD, and all of you are all just involved in a Pump and Dump Scheme.
I prefer my schematics better than yours as I wish to believe the good in the Company and the reasons I just posted for the increase in share price versus a change in cusip as being a reason for this stock going to a dollar tomorrow from 3 pennies.
$4 Gas and $100 oil is here to stay. In a few years, $6 gas and $150 oil will not be a shock, but a norm.
It is just the way it is.
SHANGHAI -(MarketWatch)- China's domestic oil product supplies are expected to remain tight in the April-June period, due to seasonally strong demand and power shortages, the National Development and Reform Commission said Monday.
"Though lower crude oil prices since May have eased operational costs on refiners, we are not optimistic about local fuel supplies," NDRC said on its website.
The power supply shortfalls in several provinces since April have spurred diesel demand from independent power generators to generate more electricity, it said.
Diesel stocks fell to 7.7 million metric tons at the end of March, down 15.2% on month, while overall oil product inventory declined 8.8% from February to 13.9 million tons, NDRC said.
China is expected to face a severe power supply crunch this summer, with a shortfall of up to 40 gigawatts as drought continues to slash hydroelectric power generation and thermal coal supply stays tight.
HONG KONG (MarketWatch) — A sharp rise in domestic government spending by Saudi Arabia and other key Arab oil exporters threatens to upset the mutually beneficial relationship they’ve kept for decades with energy consumers worldwide.
A wave of popular protests sweeping the Middle East and North Africa has toppled regimes in Tunisia and Egypt and led to civil war in Libya. It has also forced the region’s rulers to launch programs worth tens of billions of dollars in attempts to redress public grievances.
The spending spree is likely to be felt far beyond their borders. To cover the cost, energy producers have to squeeze more money from their oil fields. That means raising their “break-even” price — the amount of money they must make from each barrel of oil — to avoid fiscal deficits.
Failure to fund these new commitments could lead to domestic spending cuts, which could stoke social and political unrest, or jeopardize their fiscal soundness by requiring they take on more national debt or draw down sovereign wealth funds accumulated over the years.
Producers’ rising break-even points also have profound implications for consumers, and the interests of both groups depend on finding an oil price they can live with.
“A major implication of this higher break-even price of oil is that it is unlikely that we will see oil prices below $70 to $80 [a barrel] in coming years. The period of low oil prices that we had, particularly in the 1990s, is gone,” said Garbis Iradian, a deputy director in the Africa and Middle East Department at the Institute of International Finance, in a telephone interview from Washington.
$100 a barrel
Iradian said the global economy could cope with oil prices in the $80 to $100-a-barrel range, but would be hurt if prices held at $130 to $140 “for a long period of time.”
He’s not the only person with the view that $100 a barrel is something consumers can handle.
Charles Seville, a director in the sovereign debt team of Fitch Ratings, wrote in emailed comments that the world economy is adjusting to higher oil prices, and that $100 oil is “less of a shock second time around than it was in 2008,” when Nymex crude-oil prices peaked at $146 a barrel.
Seville said, however, that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, a 12-member cartel of oil exporters that claims to own nearly 80% of the world’s proven oil reserves, will not “seek oil prices so high that they tip the global economy into recession.”
HONG KONG (MarketWatch) — A sharp rise in domestic government spending by Saudi Arabia and other key Arab oil exporters threatens to upset the mutually beneficial relationship they’ve kept for decades with energy consumers worldwide.
A wave of popular protests sweeping the Middle East and North Africa has toppled regimes in Tunisia and Egypt and led to civil war in Libya. It has also forced the region’s rulers to launch programs worth tens of billions of dollars in attempts to redress public grievances.
The spending spree is likely to be felt far beyond their borders. To cover the cost, energy producers have to squeeze more money from their oil fields. That means raising their “break-even” price — the amount of money they must make from each barrel of oil — to avoid fiscal deficits.
Failure to fund these new commitments could lead to domestic spending cuts, which could stoke social and political unrest, or jeopardize their fiscal soundness by requiring they take on more national debt or draw down sovereign wealth funds accumulated over the years.
Producers’ rising break-even points also have profound implications for consumers, and the interests of both groups depend on finding an oil price they can live with.
“A major implication of this higher break-even price of oil is that it is unlikely that we will see oil prices below $70 to $80 [a barrel] in coming years. The period of low oil prices that we had, particularly in the 1990s, is gone,” said Garbis Iradian, a deputy director in the Africa and Middle East Department at the Institute of International Finance, in a telephone interview from Washington.
$100 a barrel
Iradian said the global economy could cope with oil prices in the $80 to $100-a-barrel range, but would be hurt if prices held at $130 to $140 “for a long period of time.”
He’s not the only person with the view that $100 a barrel is something consumers can handle.
Charles Seville, a director in the sovereign debt team of Fitch Ratings, wrote in emailed comments that the world economy is adjusting to higher oil prices, and that $100 oil is “less of a shock second time around than it was in 2008,” when Nymex crude-oil prices peaked at $146 a barrel.
Seville said, however, that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, a 12-member cartel of oil exporters that claims to own nearly 80% of the world’s proven oil reserves, will not “seek oil prices so high that they tip the global economy into recession.”
Ace, from previous experience with other companies, it takes about 10 days to notify finra/nasd about cusip and name changes to go before they can go into effect. I would assume we would hear by Friday.
Place to start looking is otcbb.com and go to daily list for name and symbol changes starting Thursday. We probably will know about it before the company announces it. If someone keeps looking.
That in itself would be nice news validating that the deal is done. Should give confidence in the trading.
Chief, I think a reverse was over a year ago. I hope that answers your question.
Auggie, you get those few shares at .029? I told you that was as low as it was going to go.
Did you get it? .02zzz?
ETMM obviously hit that 370k bid and wants to sell 330k more. Why show 700,000 all at once? If he is trading out of Etrade, the commission is what? 9.99. Break it up man. Somebody does not know what they are doing.
Auggie,
.029 maybe. .02, probably not. Nice base forming here.
All the flippers who bought in on the first run in the 1 to 1.5 cent range are finding themselves flipping here in the 3s and 4s.
Nice base forming here in the 3s Cost basis is getting higher, giving better support for a potential launch into the 6-8 range on the next momentum run.