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.
The story that most people here see is daily double digit percentage gains. Sadly, for those without shares, they'll be paying more to buy in tomorrow. The train is leaving the station, got your ticket???
Close @ .04!
Once again the source referenced is Audrey Matura-Shepherd, and she mentioned it as having heard that from someone. So the person who resigned from Oceana after some seriously questionable comments, mentions that she heard from somebody that there was no oil, and now someone here is referencing that as fact.
I'm not sure the video's were recorded using the this loose Canon. It could have been a Nikon, maybe even an IPhone, or Galaxy S4, and I'm quite certain the person who recorded the oil flowing into the tanks at Mitchell had a firm grip.
The loose cannons were part of the FAKE BK case against TECO, and now that their boat is being tossed around, the loose cannons may just break through the belly of their ship and sink it.
So, when there's a $10 trade at the end of the day to whack the bid, that is legitimate, but a $10 trade at the ask at the beginning of the day isn't. 45-50 barrels of oil per day is fluff, but that is somehow worse than a delisted company with no filings in three years. Good to know that people are offering to buy shares of that one for 1/28th of the last closing price prior to it being delisted.
Now that is some superior math!
Right and the price is up what six days in a row?
according to one here, it's a "small portion" now, not 10%.
Oh so maybe it's not the 10% that keeps getting bandied about here?? Maybe it's now a "small portion"???
Well its probably a good thing they didn't drill in BELISE.
Right,
from Audrey Matura-Sheperd, that well respected source of information, who resigned from Oceana after she made some really bizarre comments: http://edition.channel5belize.com/archives/86067
That's an excellent source alright.
Unbelizeable!
Hehe, imagine how much crying will be going on when Treaty goes after the petitioners. Anybody have a crying towel??
Kanola, it was a pervious judgment, which means ummm it can't hold water.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pervious
TDBowieknife
If you've ever had contractors come to your home and do shoddy work, sub-standard work and you refuse to pay for it till it was done right, then you understand why TECO would refuse to pay, it's a fairly simple concept. Once you find a contractor that does the job right, you stick with them, and pay them on time. Apparently we were satisfied with the work TNC did, and TNC was satisfied with their payment. That's how B U I S N E S S is supposed to work.
This one may be even easier than the last. Here's what Treaty had to say about the then pending BK case.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=87915373
Rhonda / Ronda. Talk about disgruntled. What a shame.
And what is her name?? is it Rhonda as on the first page of those docs? Or is it indeed Ronda. I think Ronda was on the Treaty BOD at one time. I don't know about Rhonda.
I'm sure that Treaty will have a response for this one too.
BTW anyone else notice the invoices all have the word business (B U I S N E S S) misspelled on their invoices, and the word Treaty spelled as Trinity?? Or how about on page 16 the lease is listed as McCullough, and the same invoice number on page 41 has that XXX'd out and McComas typed next to it??
Why do so many of the invoices reference Trinity Energy???
Yeah interesting that Judge Legall retired just after getting this ball rolling. Doesn't pass the sniff test IMO.
The gang of six had plenty of time to put this together. If they had actually ponied up enough funds well in advance to get a competent attorney, maybe things would have gone better for them.
Some helpful hints here...
Ya get what ya pay for.
The six P's.
So what rule did TECO IR violate in their two posts here??
What possible legal action can TECO take against the petitioners of the unsuccessful BK case? I'm sure they (the petitioners) have some idea what might be coming down the pike, but maybe someone here with some legal background could enlighten us all as to what they (the petitioners) are potentially exposed to.
Belize Oilwatch,
I am under the impression that the GOB has to release any information about any potential oil find by Treaty or any other company. So to say
"Treaty has not yet shared the results of their San Juan #3 exploration well yet."
puts the onus on Treaty, but once again from what I understand it is up to the GOB to make any pronouncements about oil finds by Treaty or any other company. Is that incorrect?
If TECO's IR was allowed to post here it is quite possible they would. I know they did yesterday, yet my belief is they were banned sometime since then.
Some of the FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) has been removed.
I'm thinking that this place will be more balanced going forward.
Oil is still flowing from Mitchell #3 and #4.
I think tomorrow we will see the pps rise a good bit.
I think tomorrow the volume will start to increase.
Both great signs for TECO.
Still time to get on board, or get pounded.
GO TECO!
Remove the sticky about Forced Bankruptcy.
Heh or hopefully some not so nice restaurants.
Remove Forced Liquidation Bankruptcy Update!
mods, could we get rid of that bankruptcy sticky???
Good to see things starting to turn our way.
What we need now is the Coup de grace!
Let the pounding resume!
Two words from IR.
"Confirmed Dismissal!"
Assuming that this BK suit gets shot down by the judge, we have to assume that the petitioners will appeal right? Basically what I'm saying is that even with a ruling in our favor, we still won't be done with this correct? The next question is who is funding this, I mean someone has to pay the attorney.
When should we expect a ruling on this?
I contacted SEC about just that last year. Just to let you all know I did get a call from someone from the SEC. She asked me a few questions about what my suspicions were about TECO trades, and why I called it in. She didn't say anything about what might happen, but I doubt they call back for no reason. Take from that what you will.
Emily Litella - "Oh well that's different. Never mind!"
not to be picky but...
494124 shares buy side
260676 sell side
15 buys
6 sells
For those of you who maintain there is no such thing as NSS, the SEC might tend to disagree with you. This of course could possibly impact those who sold "phantom shares" of TECO.
http://baltimore.citybizlist.com/article/former-maryland-banker-jonathan-feldman-held-guilty-%E2%80%98naked-short-selling%E2%80%99-0
This originally appeared in the WSJ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324904004578537692730996164.html
Lots of buying, .0175's gone now.
td, subliminal message?
"I'm thinking that if there was a good indication of oil like even a little flowing oil in San Juan 3 it would have leaked out buy now."
mmbane,
Perhaps they should look at the first rule of holes.
"When you're in one, stop digging!"