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.
"hint - try starting at page 22." Better hint: Try starting at page one, and read it all, including the definition of a "financed well" and "net production revenue".
Kezzek, in the interest of accuracy, I think you are mixing up the terms of the Pennsylvania agreement and the Parker "joint venture" -- not that this will make any difference in the accuracy of your revenue predictions, as there will obviously be no cash revenues under either agreement in the foreseeable future, and there is every reason to believe that the Pennsylvania "Seller" will grow weary of the game and shed its agreement with Drake due to default sooner or later, if it hasn't already done so.
Nevertheless, the laughable agreement to pay $360,000 is part of the Parker agreement only. The Pennsylvania agreement requires much smaller expenditures, albeit expenditures which there is no reason to believe that Drake will make, since Drake has never made any significant expenditures on anything that might lead to the production of oil, gold, silver, or diamonds. The only expenditures Drake makes entail the payment of money to insiders, payments for unavoidable expenses, payments for press releases, and, occasionally, nominal up-front payments to facilitate the creation of new agreements which can by hyped by the company.
"that's assuming no new wells are added." Oh, there are a lot more assumptions than just that. First of all, you are assuming, without direct evidence, that Drake now has multiple "financed wells" (as defined in its agreement: "A financed operating well shall mean a well in which Buyer [Drake] has invested funds for development ....") on the Myers lease. No statement from Drake thus far can be construed as stating that there are any financed wells there, and if so, how many. Evidently, you wish to assume that there are three.
Having leaped to this assumption, you further assume a flow rate which is strictly fictional. There has been no information provided by Drake as to any rates of flow.
Given the above assumptions, you further assume that "there are plenty of ways Drake can make money", an assumption for which there is, again, no evidence. There is only one way that Drake can make money in Pennsylvania, and that is by providing rather large sums of money for reworking the wells and hoping that the wells then produce enough to buy themselves on behalf of Drake.
That's a lot of assuming.
"by those calculations, Drake could be looking at around $640,000 in revenue." Yes; too bad those calculations are meaningless and without basis, as is the phrase "the investment DRAKE has IN PARKER ALREADY PAID FOR".
You really need to read Drake's agreements. There is nothing in Pennsylvania that "belongs to Drake" at this point. Nothing. Drake has given no basis for rational speculation as to how much oil is being pumped, or might in the future be pumped, from any Pennsylvania wells.
Drake has no bookable investment in Parker. Supposedly, Drake has paid Parker $3,000 and, in consideration, received a .0005 working interest in a putative future well. That's it. If Drake should advance the $360,000 called for by the Parker agreement [giggle], Drake would receive a larger interest in the putative future results of Parker's (currently non-existent) projects. And that's that.
Drake having no "money making ventures", it would be hard to diversify into "other" money making ventures.
"ask about horizonal drilling" Yes, and ask about forming a new airline with direct flights to Peking while you're at it. That's as likely as horizontal drilling by Drake in a Pennsylvania oil field.
Other possibilities? One tip for those who haven't been around too long: If the word "hydro-slotting" is ever mentioned, run for your life. It's one of the perennial "new techniques" touted by a lot of oil scams. It makes a nice story, but doesn't produce oil in the kind of wells in which Drake has an interest -- and it's prohibitively expensive.
"believe the production results from the company or don't ...." There are no "production results" in that press release. "A number of wells" and "varying amounts" and no mention of who owns what is not a "production report".
"not my problem" Actually, it is the problem of shareholders, and definitely not mine.
We all know about that silly, vague press release. Now: How much oil? For whom?
"DKGR IS PUMPING OIL AS I TYPE THIS." How much? For whom?
"We'll see about that." With this stock, as Lord Keynes said, it's always a case of jam tomorrow, never a jar of jam today.
Now get in there and slap that offer!
"OIL flows!" Yes, it does. So does liquified manure. Too bad money isn't flowing, given that screaming chart and all that!
"chart is screaming!" You bet! Almost $1,000 in transactions today! Chart is screaming; chart is setting up nicely; bids stacking; ask thinning; price churning nicely; people howling and scratching to get in.
Oil dripping, a little.
Just in the interest of clarity, Drake owes the $360,000 to Parker, production or not, and that has nothing to do with the Pennsylvania wells. Drake has no interest in any of the Pennsylvania wells until and unless Drake furnishes the money for refurbishing each well there. Drake has never claimed to have spent a dime on any of those wells; it only said that "the operator" had installed some new equipment. Hypothetically, once each well is refurbished, Drake would begin receiving credit for a small percentage of the production from that well, which would have to be spent on further refurbishing of other wells.
Since Drake has provided no information about any money expended in Pennsylvania, and given all the prior misinformation it has published, most investors will take a jaundiced view toward what is going on there. We do know that there is no way Drake could be receiving any money from any of those wells, and we know that Drake has published no information about production.
"DKGR has been a shell until recently." DKGR has never met the definition of a shell in the six years I've watched it. "new managment took over ...." Yeah, new management from six years ago! "we ... have some very early production numbers" You have no production numbers at all, early or late, and the mysterious 26 barrels oil was not said to be "from one of the wells", or from any particular source. It just sort of appeared.
Those very large chunk-owning "boys from Alberta" are almost as impressive as the "main man" who talks to a few people here. Given such strong and well documented evidence, I may have to reconsider.
There are lots of good, reputable companies that will pay cash up front for "rights to rights" (roughly, rights of first refusal). Our family had a similar arrangement on some Colorado land, and the price for the rights, after years of languishing, has gone way up the last few years. Just be careful of whom you deal with. Good luck.
Drake will only lease your North Dakota minerals if it can work out an arrangement, with another scam company, that will cost Drake no cash (similar to the Pennsylvania arrangement) while giving some (false) appearance of value. Drake's cash is purely nominal, while its current agreements put it well north of $360,000 in the hole. Then there's all the recent palaver about Drake doing some horizontal drilling im Pennsylvania. That would put it another million or two in the hole, I suppose, although there's no danger that it will actually happen.
Good luck, and be careful in the non-oil patch.
You'll find no legitimate tie-in between Drake and any real oil producing company. North Dakota is (apparently) right now where Pennsylvania was a century ago, before all the wells there were depleted.
Sure, never even knew him, although the more you spoke with him the more accomplished he became. Now, he's a good guy (or a great guy?) despite the fact that you don't know him.
As you say, "just he was the IR contact." Yes, just he was the guy over whose name false information was published, and the guy (one of several) who hid the fact that the Pennsylvania contract was in default. For his behavior as Drake's IR alone, any rational person would distrust everything he says.
"I feel sorry for him taking all the hits for past things he had nothing to do with ...." He had everything to do with TNOG/GSRE/RRRI and DKGR (in the past as well as the present), as you know. Also TRGD (revoked), FCCN (morphed into Spectral), XUN (no significant business operations) and several other companies which are turned up by even the most basic internet search. There is nothing in his past that "he had nothing to do with", and not much in which he was not instrumental. Why anyone would pretend otherwise, or pretend that such information is difficult to come by or suspect, is beyond me, especially when no one can come up with a single legitimate company in his resumé.
But I'm happy to provide the service of allowing everyone to get cheapies! Go for it!
"Peter stepped to the plate when we were going to loose [sic] our lease ...." Peter and a couple of others were all crowded around the plate when the lease was lost. Matousek's job was to publicize the lease with great fanfare, then hide the fact that the company had defaulted on it for several months, then announce that he had repaired most of the damage.
"he acquired the Myres [sic] lease" It was supposedly Smith and Jackson who "acquired" the Myers lease. See above for Matousek's role.
"he acquired other lease options" Nah, he just saw to the the reworking of old agreements on those other leases, same same as the Myers lease.
"he got us back to Current Pink Sheet Status" Whee! That and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
"he got us debt free" What on earth does "got us debt free" mean? He did nothing other than, supposedly, getting Smith to cancel an old questionable debt, the consideration for which has never been disclosed. Presumably, that consideration was a bundle of free-trading stock.
"he set up new relationships with other companies" That's a pretty fanciful way of describing next to nothing. The only company that comes to mind is Parker, a dark private company of doubtful worth, with no properties, to which Drake now owes $360,000. That's quite a fruitful relationship! Perhaps you refer to Matousek's very late interest in a movie production company and that other scam he just joined. If you refer to anything else, let us know. As I've said, Matousek has never been connected with any legitimate company that I know of, so his "relationships" are pretty dismal.
"he paid off tons of debt" He didn't pay off anything, and you're doubling up on the Smith debt cancellation. There was no other "ton of debt", unless the company's financial statements are falsified, and the accounts payable were not down significantly from June to September.
"he got us OIL" He hasn't gotten "us" any oil yet. It sounds more as if the operator checked the tanks and found some oil in them. Any cash proceeds from that oil will not be paid over to Drake.
"he got us producing assets" You're doubling up again, and Drake has no current interest in any production beyond what will be applied to its obligations. That's true only until the Drake defaults on the Pennsylvania agreement again, and presumably, when it does, no one will be told -- just like last time.
"he takes grief everyday" Not nearly as much as he deserves, and he doesn't care about that anyway. He probably reads defenses of himself here with great mirth.
And on and on, and so forth and so forth, down to "he answers his phone" and "he was in the Navy". Whoopee! So many words about so little.
How interesting that all Matousek's friends and relations just showed up at the same time to vouch for him (without providing any vouchable details, of course).
"... he is one of the most honest and forthright people I have ever had the pleasure of meeting." Name the successul companies this honest and forthright person has been associated with. When you can't do that, just name the legitimate companies he's been associated with. When you can't do that, explain why Drake is different and why you call descriptions of Matousek's former connections and actions "opinion", while passing off your opinion as fact.
Thanks.
Why anyone would believe a word this company's principals say is beyond me. As the S. E. C. so succinctly puts it, "It's not enough to ask a promoter for more information or for references - fraudsters have no incentive to set you straight." That seems so conceptually obvious that it always amazes me when someone proudly quotes the person attempting to defraud him.
Wonderful! Clayton said so; and some main man "saw" the whole thing, and Clayton walked away without any money or anything and has no interest in Drake. Rather like before. I can surely believe you now that you've presented that evidence!
"Who cares, Clayton is gone, his family has signed off and they do not control any debt into shares ...." Who told you that, and why do you believe it?
"... so lets move on and let the new management continue to move forward ...." There is no "new management" here, which has been amply demonstrated. Why would you refer to the company "moving forward" when there's precious little evidence that it has moved anywhere?
"... holding onto Clayton's stories will not change anything ...." Dismissing all that has been done in the past, by Smith and Matousek, won't change anything either.
"... Peter has cleaned up the company ...." Please define "cleaned up". Does doubling the share count and watching others install an electric motor and pump a little (very little) oil that does Drake no good constitute cleaning up the company?
"... the company has two one hundred barrel oil tanks ...." The company has virtually nothing. There are a couple of big oil tanks on some property that Drake could someday, supposedly, have an interest in. So what?
"... sounds like no one broke any laws." No, it sounds as if no one is going to be prosecuted, which is quite a different matter, and, as I noted, it sounds as if the person who posted the message was overreaching quite a bit as to the "investigation".
Of course, if you believe that everyone who breaks a law is prosecuted, you might reach a different conclusion (although it would be erroneous).
It's amazing what one comes up with when doing a little research. Here's an interesting message about DKGR and the other best-known Smith/Matousek scam, TNOG/GSRE/RRRI -- a message I don't recall ever seeing before:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=51645218
I have no idea who the poster is, and I do not vouch for all the information he presents. It seems to me probable that he severely overplayed his hand in his comments as to the investigation of the companies and principals.
The only point that I would make is that his description of the acts of the principals, and the management of the companies, is perfectly congruent with everything I have observed for over six years. There is no use elaborating on that description. The message speaks for itself. I will add, however, that the actions attributed to the principals in regard to publicizing non-existent or mischaracterized relationships is perfectly consistent with the known facts of the Pegasus Oil fiasco (fake merger) and at least one other incidence of claimed association which turned out to be bogus, but which I unfortunately cannot recall now.
Take from it what you will. Several telephone numbers are provided for those interested in researching these matters further.
"many people have been saying clayton is gone for months." For years, wipper. Smith himself is one of those who keeps saying it intermittently, but every time one turns around, there he is again. His tearful resignation letter of "08-06-08" (not sure whether that was common or military notation, so it was June or August of '08) was the most breathtaking of his several departures. You couldn't be any more "gone" than he said he was in 2008, and yet, here he is again this year, until the efficacy of yet another "departure" is indicated. This time, of course, he took a basket of shares with him in exchange for the debt that Drake couldn't pay (even though some people who should know indicated he had never provided Drake with any consideration for that debt).
What's really odd is that so many people believe in each of his exits, and always say those exits were good for the company, usually shortly after extolling his latest achievements.
Conjecture? No. Clayton Smith worked for Peter J. Matousek in Matousek's Novak Capital venture, a fact which has been mentioned here many times. Novak Capital was in the business of promoting stocks for its own benefit, and openly disclosed that it received shares which it sold in exchange for publicity. The TNOG/GSRE/RRRI scam was the first in which I remember heavy involvement by Smith, and Matousek was right there with him. I'd bet it was Novak's most profitable venture, although it certainly wasn't profitable for shareholders. During the aforementioned scam, Smith found DKGR and he and Matousek pumped it, too.
No "conjecture", classic or otherwise, and highly relevant, because Matousek and Smith did not just bump into each other coincidentally in the Gresham "office" of Drake.
"DKGR produced nothing but false PRs and shares under clayton." You left out, "with Peter Matousek serving as the information officer and knowingly offering up the false PRs."
"as apposed [sic] to your viewpoint - all bad, all the time?" Yes, pretty much so -- unless one is just scalping.
"i'm sure the fact that Drake are now producing is still not enough for you." To whatever extent that is true, it is irrelevant to me. It certainly should not be enough for investors that there is said to be some number of wells producing varying amounts. No information on current production; no information on expected peak production or its timing; no information on estimated reserves to be pumped. No information on anything relevant, in fact. That "number of wells" may be producing a barrel a month, for all we know (the 26 barrels that the company now "has" being a fact not necessarily, or even probably, connected to current production).
"14 million under the bid." It has probably occurred to many that the sale of 14 million shares under the bid is most likely a reflection of the fact that the bid referred to was not entirely genuine.
"Good place to load up." As always. It's all good, all the time, with DKGR!
"In such case as this one I think that it lines up again with ones that I have seen reach to the top ...." So the ones you've seen make these miraculous gains were all run by sleazy penny stock promoters without any practical business experience? Did they all also have a history of repeated failures known to thousands of investors?
"... he's [Clayton Smith, I presume] no longer involved with the company." So you say, and try to sell the proposition to others. There is no reason to believe that he was replaced by some dark, mysterious, Canadian investor. Always so much darkness and mystery here, isn't there? The (Pennsylvania) Seller is a mystery; Parker is a mystery; the new alleged "majority shareholder" is a mystery; the number of wells refurbished is a mystery; the flow rates are a mystery; and the source of the 26 barrels of oil is a mystery. Overall, it's an overwhelming mystery! (And what about those mysterious entities controlled by Greg Smith which apparently own a lot of DKGR shares?)
My opinion? No, not at all. Panic sellers sell! They don't sit on the offer. They are panicked! Why pretend otherwise?
If you refer to my comments on the insiders, consider that there is no other explanation (short of conspiracy tapestries woven out of thin air) to explain the trading for the last year. No one can come up with one, other than that the sellers, who have earned hundreds of thousands of dollars for their sales of a sinking stock, are "stupid". Believe that if you wish, but don't tell me the sellers are "panicked". They are simply hoping for a little panic buying, which leads me to believe there is yet another magnificent press release on the way. The last one moved the price two one-hundredths of a cent which, as of this moment, has already been lost because very few believe the company's press releases. We'll see what the next one does.
"... if we can get the panic sellers off the 6's we might get this moving." Panic sellers would have hit that big bid long ago. There are no "panic sellers" on the offer, only determined insiders trying to maximize their take.
The S. E. C. does what it considers the best it can. The following information is readily available on the website:
"work with the guy's in TX" Yes, by all means, pony up that $360,000 post haste!
"throw in a few JV's" Absolutely! The one already entered into isn't doing much (see the first paragraph), so something new and different is needed. Try a merger with some struggling B--- film producer. That has to fit in well with the oil business. Of course, no legitimate company will have anything to do with Drake, so the JVs aren't going to produce anything; but still, those "JVs" can sure get people excited! Some people are still excited by the putative Parker test well.
You have proof of nothing other than that your stock promoting President told you the company "has" 26 barrels of oil, and that more oil, from "a number" of wells, will be added to that, in "varying amounts".
"what do you have?"
1) Proof positive, already presented, that Peter J. Matousek, on whose word you rely, is an experienced stock promoter who has never demonstrated any knowledge of the oil business or any other legitimate business.
2) Proof positive, prima facie, that the prior press releases issued by Matousek earlier this year in his official capacity as the investor relations officer were at best misleading, definitely deficient in the information provided to investors, and very likely simply fabricated, at least in part.
3) Ample evidence, in the agreements publicized by Drake, that it will never receive cash proceeds from any oil wells in which it claims any present interest.
4) Ample evidence, in the agreements publicized by Drake, that it has contracted to expend large sums of money which it neither has, nor has access to (which is ample evidence that the agreements are nothing more than a part of its latest scam).
5) Ample and increasing evidence that there are so few who will listen to Drake's pronouncements any more that even its most extreme promotional efforts can barely lift the share price.
6) Proof that Drake has issued and either sold and/or paid out hundreds of millions of shares this year, most of which were unrestricted from sale.
7) Proof in the form of the company's financial statements that all its activities this year, through September 30, yielded not a penny of revenue (as I had predicted), despite multiple claims of producing wells.
8) Proof that the financial statements issued by the company at least until September 30, 2012, were false and/or incomplete (as I had predicted), needing multiple revisions.
9) Ample evidence that, as I predicted, Drake would undergo multiple changes of management. Growing evidence that, as I predicted, these "new managements" would produce no results worth discussing.
What more "proof" would be necessary?