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.
"Not sure why this FACT is being missed and/or being avoided." It isn't. It's hardly worth repeating that it doesn't mean anything even similar to the construction you put on it.
"... even if they do sell and do all the steps to get the Cash.....how do they pay the dividend?" That is not a problem, since there is no "they". You can verify that by trying to contact "them".
"NSS in FFGO will soon will be proven, whether you like it or not!" People have been saying that for a number of years now, but they can't (and never will) "prove" what doesn't exist, and it has nothing to do with who "likes it". Alternatively, some claim (repeatedly and endlessly) that it has already been "proven", by quoting the same tired daily trading data over and over, which proves nothing.
"Forget those FINRA figures." That would be good advice.
"... billions and billions of EXTRA AIR shares are in our accounts." No, there are no "air shares" in anyone's account. Check with your broker.
"Do you have any explanation for that?" Sure! Fortress and its insiders dumped all those very real shares on people in order to take their money. "... you don't believe our side of the story?" Of course not. There are no "sides" to the story, there is only what happened. As AlanC said, "Investors should be careful to rely on trustworthy sources for information, while being aware that just because something is posted on the internet by someone posing as an authority, that doesn't make the preposterous things that they claim... true." The whole FFGO NSS story, with its conspiracy which includes all regulators, market makers, broker-dealers, and a number of hedge funds, as well as many members of the judicial and legislative branches of government, is as preposterous as any "theory" ever concocted.
"I consider Viianna [sic] a trustworthy and honest person, who's [sic] list is very reliable and complete!" Vianna's list is irrelevant. Of course there are a lot of shares outstanding. Fortress sold people every last share that could be sold, and its own press releases confirm numbers into the tens of billions of shares, at least. Reread the last two sentences of the paragraph above.
"Please don't tell me that there are no NSS in FFGO." Why not? It's the truth. Are you allergic to the truth?
The "figures provided on this board" are data produced for other purposes, not purported to provide any information as to short positions and never intended to be twisted into that false meaning. Those data are posted and misconstrued here over and over by people whose only response to rational explanation is to copy and paste their misunderstandings and post them again. Going along with that nonsense is the alternative to listening to the truth, which you seem to find objectionable.
If the buyers are "newbies", and not "oldbies" or pump primers, I have a feeling that the $500 may be their entire investment stake, so "too expensive" will be an uncomforably relative term.
"... everyone seems to be interested in getting in ...." Well, yes, if consider those willing to spend a grand total of $574.50 "everyone"! However, something tells me there's a bit more money that in the market and currently univested.
"... Those FINRA numbers ... are purported to be an ALL INCLUSIVE full summary of ALL REPORTED short participation ...." I know of no definition for "short participation", but I do know that FINRA numbers are not "all inclusive" by any definition, since they fail to show one leg of each two-legged transaction and therefore fail to show a lot of the immediate, within-the-day covering of temporary short sales, as well as some of the temporary short-selling itself.
"... given the exemptions in the rules that have existed, and those that still exist, there are a number of ways that settlement can be postponed... indefinitely... without creating failures to deliver." No, there is not even one way, let alone "a number of ways". All the mumbo jumbo in the world about "ex clearings" does not change that fact. If shares are not received by a buyer by the settlement date, the entity which fails to receive them reports that failure to deliver, and it doesn't matter what kind of supposed black magic the market makers might be using in the background. Reporting of fails to deliver does not depend on anything the intermediaries do or don't do other than whether actual shares were delivered. FINRA has never reported any information to the contrary to anyone, and it is of no matter whether those who read the FINRA information can understand it.
"Investors should be ... aware that just because something is posted on the internet by someone posing as an authority, that doesn't make the preposterous things that they claim... true." Now that surely is correct!
Yes, 7.85 million down, 84.65 million to go!
""Drake Gold Resources Inc. is pleased to announce that 7 wells have now been reworked. The eighth well is expected to be reworked by the end of January." Nobody cares about that (or should I say, should care about that?). The only wells that benefit Drake are "leased wells", per the agreement -- wells for which Drake paid for the reworking.
"There are now a total of 80 barrels in the tank battery." And that's the thing people should care the very least about. What is being pumped?
Has anyone with a stake here even tried to talk directly to Repaski?
I'm not sure about any "BBs", but I'm pretty much at leisure today.
I would think any company advocate either hard at work or making good use of his leisure time would concern himself with answering the obvious questions below (instead of fetting about those "BBs"):
How many "leased wells" are there in Pennsylvania at present?
How much oil has been pumped from leased wells (assuming there are any) since they were reworked?
What is the sustainable flow from each of these wells?
What happened to the supposed $100,000 mentioned privately to a few people which would supposedly result from Parker's becoming a public company in mid-January?
How much of the $360,000 contractually due to Parker has been paid?
Those questions would do for starters.
"Failed projects?" No. In retrospect, obvious scams, including claims of production; not failed projects.
"... have you ever called and spoken to anyone ...." Of course not. Remember, "It's not enough to ask a promoter for more information or for references - fraudsters have no incentive to set you straight." - S. E. C. document "Oil and Gas Scams: Common Red Flags and Steps You Can Take to Protect Yourself"
"... or gone to the site or anything to be able to make these claims?" Of course not, and I'm not making "claims". I'm reciting facts and history, and making perfectly logical conjectural statements as to the likely current status of the company and its "interests".
Take exception to any conjecture if you wish, but don't call the company's history, or the fact that no report as to production or the number of "leased wells" has been given, "claims". Those are facts.
I don't know what a "BB" is, but I know it isn't me. I have posted many times about the Smith/Matousek proclivity for entering into agreements -- usually, rather odd agreements which are virtually worthless from inception. All theae agreements are, after all, the principal events used to hype these stocks. I have also said that all the agreements are eventually abandoned, or defaulted on by Drake, and that none of them ever produce a penny of revenue for the shareholders. If you can find an exception to that, I'd be glad to look at it, but don't include any "current" agreements. There is no way of knowing whether those have yet been cancelled (such events are generally disclosed or discovered months or years later, as was the default on the original Pennsylvania agreement) and no reason to believe that they are benefiting Drake in any significant way. Furthermore, I'm not interested in tales of secret amendments or revisions to any of these agreements. If such exist, Drake is derelict in reporting them to shareholders and the public at large.
As to "there is no oil", it's a pretty good guess that there is no oil at present from which the proceeds will flow to Drake. It's an even better guess that there is little or no oil being pumped right now, and that Drake's share of any oil that is being pumped is virtually nil.
There is also no evidence that very much has been done in the way of reworking wells, or that Drake was a meaningful participant in any reworking that has been done. It seems that people who rely heavily on Matousek's word are nonetheless loath to ask him any questions they feel might be embarrassing or insulting. No one connected with Drake has ever given so much as a number of "financed wells" (as per the Pennsylvania agreement) or any production report on even one of those wells.
I'd say, in light of the above, that "those were just lies" is a pretty far stretch.
"... I forgot we were told the leases do not exist ...." That's a very imaginative interpretation of what you were told. Actually, you were told they aren't going to produce any value for you, and they won't. And nobody gives a tinker's dam how much oil is in the tanks, and there's no way of projecting any "outlook" on production when Drake has never given you a single clue as to what, if anything, is being pumped.
I'd have to agree that $0.0003 is not a bad entry point -- compared to all the other recent entry points available. It seems, though, that those who say they would like more shares don't exactly agree. They've only ponied up $450 of the $2,100+ traded so far today. As I said, the reluctance is somewhat curious.
"who's doing the buying ...." Obviously, a few retail shareholders whose dreams of cheapies have come true as they were "bid-sitting" (I think that's what some call it). Why would you have to ask?
Edit: Or, wait! Maybe its a couple of multi-billion dollar hedge funds that have spent $2,000 on the stock. Or maybe the insiders are buying it back!? Of course, in either of those cases, the reluctance to step up to the plate (the offer) would seem curious.
"who's selling?" So far today, nobody but a few discouraged retail shareholders. Have patience. Those $0.0002s will get to you soon enough.
"... does SBRH/DKGR intend to produce oil, or do they intend to turn or flip this lease(leases) for immediate cash?" The answer is almost certainly "neither". The intent almost certainly is to sell a whole lot of shares. That's always been the plan with Drake (which doubled its authorized share count last year); what with the leadership at Drake and Sebastian overlapping, and a "joint venture" announced, there's no reason to assume the intent at Sebastian is any different.
"I do not know how many acres DKGR has in their lease ...." The company originally claimed "1,500 Acres Of Producing Oil & Gas Assets Containing 299 Wells", but the numbers seem to keep changing, with the changes not being detailed for shareholders. (If the implications of that original press release had been true, the company would be awash in oil by now.) The terms of the "joint venture" cloud the issue even further.
Hope this helps.
You left out: Fact: Drake has entered into many contracts at many different times for many different commodities, and its shareholders have never benefited by so much as a penny from any of its activities.
That's really all you need to know.
"... none of us 'little people' know how this will play out including you and me ...." If it's comforting to believe that no one knows, and that all outcomes are equally likely, fine; but it's not true, I'm afraid. I (and many others) do know, since it's a rerun of a play we've seen many times before, with the same cast and plot.
Sure. It's just coincidental, and irrelevant, that all the transactions took place at the bid. No one should worry about that, or that the price fell at one point to $0.0001. Every sell's a buy, too! That's what traders told themselves on Black Friday in 1929.
Cheers!
"Now if SBRH/DKGR owns a large number of acres ...." They don't own a darned thing. They have a putative future interest in some oil production if and only if they provide a bunch of money to rework some wells. Since neither company has ever had any money to speak of, it's doubtful their interests are worth a plugged nickel. Why are people stretching and twisting facts and speculation so hard to try to invent something big where there is nothing of value?
SBRH has no money to drill for anything. As to "flipping" the property, I'm familiar with the kind of properties that the management of Drake gets involved with. They are invariably the lowest part of low-end, not the kind which are going to interest a real investor or producer or developer, thus my statement that I doubt Drake will be sought out by anyone. The properties Drake is likely to have an interest in (and the company owns nothing outright) would be about as easy to "flip" as the company's stock.
No, thanks. I'm pretty sure they won't be contacting Drake, and I don't have any particular need to know. Possibly some of the stakeholders here who like to post sarcastically about "oilmen" should do so, though. My guess is that, instead, one of them will call Matousek for reassurance, which he'll surely get.
"I am hearing Shell, Chevron, Seneca, and Range Resources are now active in Venango County, and are offering $3,250 an acre ...." And where are you hearing that? In the trade press? In the mass media? A tip from someone "in the know"?
"This sounds like the real deal folks." It sound to me like a bunch of hype.
"These companies are run by serious oil men who do not fool around." Well, that much is correct. They don't fool around with penny-ante pinkies like Sebastian. And, of course, if they were really interested, they'd have gotten there far ahead of Sebastian.
"Reworking wells as you laugh." With what? Furniture and fixtures?
"you have to get used to that around here." It was a mistake, and pretty quickly corrected, wasn't it?
What has to be gotten used to around here is meaningless talk like "This [the Sebastian joint venture] is HUGE!!! Peter is kicking azz!", followed by the collapse of Sebastian's balance sheet and share price, with no correction or withdrawal of the "HUGE" remark by the person who made it.
Still "HUGE"?
"Vencedor has a lot riding on this ...." Vencedor has next to nothing riding on this until money is actually advanced. If Vencedor withdrew its support, do you think that would be promptly and clearly announced by Xun?
By the way, just what is Vencedor Energy Partners, anyway? I can find little about it, other than its self-descriptions on the internet. What is Vencedor looking to get out of the Xun relationship? Does it really have an "outstanding reputation" (gained over a brief period of less than three years, evidently) to protect?
"Did FFGO privately request a revocation from the SEC." Of course not. Quite the contrary: They refused even to communicate with the S. E. C.
"The regulators stopped with the bimonthly reporting ...." No they didn't. When there were no longer numbers to report, they didn't report them. "... and refused to state why to several callers." Again, no they didn't. They simply didn't return an answer that those callers wanted to hear. We've been over this many times.
"... it is my belief it is the regulators who are holding up our getting our dividends." Those regulators cannot possibly be holding up a dividend which was never declared, doesn't exist, and for which a record date was never requested. The term "our dividend" (or "the dividend") is just bunk, no matter how many times repeated.
"We still do not have any REAL confirmation of this 700k financing." I wouldn't wait on that. It would be very unusual for anyone other than a co-conspirator to furnish, or promise to furnish, $700,000 to a company with assets of $2,750.
"The company cannot comment on what is going on behind the scenes with regulators." Oh, please! There being no company, of course it can't comment on the complete absence of anything going on "behind the scenes". There is no scene; the stage has been struck.
"The annual 3% interest earned is a nice insurance policy while we wait." ? Insurance against what; earned on what; owed by whom?
For those not paying close attention to Drake's glorious joint ventures, Sebastian just deconstructed and reassembled its last quarterly financial reports. All cash for the second and third quarters disappeared, along with all assets except for $2,750 furniture and fixtures (I'm not joking). The new financials are certainly easy to read. There's little on them except for the tracks left behind by the wasting of the company's entire capital structure. It looks as if Matousek has helped "clean up" another stinky pinkie! One would guess Drake can't look for much from Sebastian, and those holding Sebastian can't look for any more oil production there than they have seen at Drake. Truly, the two companies are fitting partners.
As you know, the reference was to "production updates", not chatter. There have been no production updates whatsoever, but plenty of chatter.
"... more frequent production updates ...." More frequent than none would be a hopeful sign I guess, but so far, we don't have anything "more frequent" than none.
So, if a dump of $7,000+ (37 million + share) is "prearranged", it is of no account? Interesting!
"Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you." Why? I'm not trying to sell you stock in a fake oil company, and don't claim personal expertise in oil drilling (or taking no prisoners, or maximizing shareholder value).
"So you have no sources of your regarding this statement?" As I told you, the sources are many and open, but of course you can avoid looking for them, or even seeing them, if you wish. Why make common knowledge sound like some hidden, doubtful secret requiring obscure "sources" to understand? You are talking about the oldest oil wells on the face of the earth. Of course they're played out. If anyone needs to test this out personally, let him try to pump his own oil there. I have no need for such an experiment.
Paul can mount some cockamamie "campaign" if he wants to, but the ultimate weapon, if you were really slandering him, would be legal action, and the very last place any of these two-bit scam promoters want to end up is in court. From time to time, they may huff and puff, but that's about it. The other important consideration is that confidence men don't have credible forums available to them for their "campaigns", so they can only influence those who prefer non-credible information.
Cheers!
"... so you're an oil man now ...." Nope, no more than Peter Matousek and his buddies are (actually, pretend to be).
"I would also love to see your sources." I doubt it. There's nothing secret about my "sources". You could start by looking up Titusville -- the first oil well in the United States (it's not a long way from Drake's "interests"; in fact, I think Titusville is in Venango County); then, you could research the western Pennsylvania oil fields in general. They're plumb tuckered out! The only thing secret is those "sources" that pretend one can pump lots of oil out of played out oil fields. I heard (since folks are always hearing things here) that, if any more oil is pumped out of western Pennsylvania, that part of the state is likely to collapse and allow Lake Erie to spill over and fill it in.
"... if they get a few wells up and running as stated, then we knows [sic] there's actually Oil there ...." No, you doesn't actually "knows" that unless the oil actually flows and keeps flowing, which is pretty problematic in western Pennsylvania.
"There will be a lot people who will want to take over the leases, if they prove there is really Oil there ...." Sure. There will be a lot of people who will want those leases if it is proved there is really uranium there, too, but one can't brush aside the necessity for proof.
"... the U.S. is headed right here at home to solve the Oil import problem." Possibly, but not by any efforts in western Pennsylvania.
"... if they get a few wells up and running as stated, then we knows [sic] there's actually Oil there ...." No, nobody knows that. There's very little oil left in these old, old oil fields. There's a pretty big chance none of the wells can be made economically productive just by dumping a jug of acid down the hole, and that wells re-worked will have to be shut back down for lack of oil.
"There will be a lot people who will want to take over the leases ...." There would be a lot of such people, if the leases were productive, but see the paragraph above.
"... the U.S. is headed right here at home to solve the Oil import problem ...." That may be, but it isn't western Pennsylvania that will be solving anything. Nobody with a particle of real knowledge about the oil industry (which leaves out anyone connected with Drake) is saying that.