Is back from vacation AND is NOT impressed
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.
UH......that is not necessarily something I like to hear.
So...he diluted himself out of back up paper?
Let's not get our noses out of joint here but uh
That entire arguement about dilution or no dilution was a crock.
You add to the OS, with or without value added acquisitions..it's friggen dilution.
NOT to harp bud but....call a spade a bloody spade
COMPANY HAS AN OUT OF CONTROL SHARE STRUCTURE AS A RESULT OF RAMPANT DILUTION.
ANY ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS AND DISINGENUOS.
Thats all i have to say
yes nitwit
lol
it's all about you!
I expect to see .55 tomorrow.
well....shucks...it's true, I don't think anyone here is planning on just buying the stock and holding every single share for 30 years????
Well there's some that might, but when they die....their family will takeover and sell some?
Fundamentally ridiculous to expect every single investor to buy and just hold and never sell.
Thinking on a shorter term, most folks who have the nads to play oil exploration stocks know damn well that until the drill hits commercially viable reserves of oil, or until oil is found, that flipping shares to lower the Cost average of your stock is a must.....sooner or later you have to bail if it fails right, and bailing from the high of the decade is not a sound strategy?
One thing about eegc that amazes me is how the general attitude is that it's investors are children needing protecting.
last I checked ya gotta be an adult to ride this ride
Well now that had nothing to do with my point, and I certainly made zero guarantees of "commercial viability", quite the opposite, also thought I made it abundantly clear that funding was required.
(kinda obvious right)
As far as how the notes will be protected?
read my lips
I DONT BLOODY CARE!!!!
LOL
I leave that part up to the company & note buyers attorneys to argue about or to worry about...simple theory really...nothing any of us says can help that out...we are not the ones selling them!!!!
lol
who cares....if funded and the drill turns, I am expecting plenty enough pops n drops along the way to play on.
All this talk of holding out for the oil is fun......but any real investors worth their weight in salt will play the stock for many reasons, to include a holding position for some.
Others will flip to build their position.
Others will take profits on the swings.
some just buy and hold
who really cares?
This is an oil exploration play. Like all the others. Do your DD, at the end of the day, all the seismic on the planet gives way to the drill.
Without the drill, and follow up groundwork, there is zero guarantees. Even with, there are not any guarantees you can take home to mother, but rather.....carefully made assurances based on production outcomes.
I hate to break the bad news to you, but all around the world mega millions are invested under exactly the same conditions.
There are other conditions as well...we will call those the low hanging fruit, as they represent the already established reserves proven.
Well let me tell you this...the low hanging fruit reserves do NOT get divied up, to owners too far from the vest, and even when they do it is not at very high discounted levels.
To refer to this potential, and it's required funding, as some kind of run of the mill investment, is disingenuos at best.
High risk vs high reward is not something the oil business is unfamiliar with, sure they try and mitigate risk any way they can, but at the end of the day all the risk management in the world cannot guarantee results.
Don't see that fact scaring off many exploration/production outfits.
Seems to me that until peak oil kills the industry, it will remain one of the higher risk ventures on the planet.
For me?......I could careless if after drilling 12 holes they find nothing to validate commercial viabilty, even if gusher after gusher fools everyone into thinking commercial viability is possible.
NOPE.....DON'T GIVE A DAMN
I will be in on the drops and out on the pops, perpetually, throughout the entire drill program....BOOM OR BUST!
Stopping along the way to re-evaluate how many shares to hold long term....if any.
So ....REALLY.....I don't care what doom'n'gloom comes this way or not.
I will have sold long before that becomes an issue.
If that is the biggest worry EEGC has, I will take it!!!!
"
We have seen plenty enough long winded full on EEGC hit parade dissertations wreaking with the rain of lies begging for an umbrella of truth.
The eegc story itself is a sight to behold, but none of which requires psychokinetic ability of bending of the factual spoons to effect the illusionary result.
There are no "non-existent oil seeps" in as much as there is no applicable definition of, "meaningfull drilling".
Rather easy to feign prestidigitationary prowess, but to suggest anything but the facts surrounding the historically inept windup application hit job, as being anything but a failure is somewhat incorrect.
This is the oil exploration business, and it is fraught with high costs, and no guarantee's, anyone not understanding that should probably not venture near.
#1-Who is the source of this information? Is it credible?
#2-Did she quit? Or was there some other definition?
#3-IF SHE QUIT....WHY? Do you know for sure the reason?
#4-Why incur the expense of an 8k?, it appears that the event is NOT CONSIDERED IMPORTANT ENOUGH FOR REPORTING BY THE SEC
SAME GOES FOR SENECA DUDE
UNLESS of course either were directors/officers of jbii?..were they?
http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8400.htm
Final Rule:
Additional Form 8-K Disclosure Requirements and Acceleration of Filing Date
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
"One commenter believed that the departure or appointment of directors and officers of certain companies should not be reportable under this item.121 We agree and have inserted an instruction to exclude a company that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a reporting company from the reporting requirements of Item 5.02.122
------------NICE TRY--------------------
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx QUOTE
--------------
JJ? NEITHER OF THOSE TWO HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH P2O
ANOTHER NICE TRY
20100913|JBII Short: 28,372 Vol: 39,022
What is a material "event"?
Just what exactly is a material "event" anyways?
Please explain and provide a link explaining what a material event is.
Do your own DD.
Prove it.
what windup?
are they wound up?
you saying it happened already?
please enlighten us....did you research the data behind that link yet? lol
if if if
until then I would suggest you bone up on the reporting requirements of subsidiaries
http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8400.htm
#1- It's GSLM...NOT GLSM
#2- GSLM IS A SUBSIDIARY OF EEGC
Are you not aware of the differences in reporting requirements for subsidiaries and parent pubco's?
HUGE Differences.
I would suggest boning up on those differences before firing off.
what a morning...I gotta go eat a handfull of horse tranquilizers
REAL
later
no shyte..an only if the oxygen tank is full
ECEC 3RD SHAKEROO
144 trades.....dippin mediumly
10,600 TIMES THE 10 DAY AVG VOLLIE FOR ECEC
NEEDSTA BREAK THAT .02 JMHO
ECEC rockin rolla costas! NOT FOR THE WEAK
SUMBITCHES CATCHIN UP ON SHYTE..HRMMMM
DA PPS! LOL
ECEC +1400%%%%%%%
ECEC +1066%
ECEC +650%
ECEC 5683 X THE 10 DAY AVG VOL
ECEC +566% buncha filings out
ECEC MOVIN
If this were some high school project, or competition for a prize for unique ideas, then a proof of concept would be an admirable goal.
This is not the case, what is being worked on here is a business model for a public company...quite a different story. Proving a concept prior to proving it can make a profit...within the confines of the regulatory sytem that regulates it, in some eyes would be fanciful.
Trying to appease some message board poster prior to having all the necessary legal and regulatory requirements in place to pursue a profit making business might be a worthwhile pursuit to some...but not all.
In this case the permitting process is quite important before an all out conceptual proofing is commissioned, especially if that proofing is to be costed against incomes yet generated.
The reason for that is very very simple.....if they cannot scale up and stay within acceptable emissions, then they have a "conceptual" problem.
Whether that is perceived or not...nothing matters more than proving the permit is attainable and moreover "in hand".
Afterall without the permit, no proof of concept is worth a hill of beans, as they will be back to the conceptual drawing board.
The arguement presented is somewhat valid, but loses favor when demands for "value" are the basic precursory ingredient for their basis, after-all....value...in this case cannot be established until "viability" is established.
There is more than one ingredient required to achieve viability, and it pretty much starts with the permit...then comes revenues, then profitability.
Demanding proof of concept in a startup such as this scenario, long before establishing operational functionality...is clearly outside the realm of necessity....and more of a demand to establish security beyond the natural speculation environment within which this technology clearly resides.
With permit in hand that environment begins to progress.
In the meantime folks either have the nads to speculate or they do not, but to make unrealistic demands on proof of "concepts" or "value propositions", prior to the permitting milestones, is not in my opinion the mark of a sound decision making process.
Rather that of a cart before the proverbial horse.
Equally so...criticizing a businessman who is following the necessary processes, for not spending copious time and/or resources to this end, prior to having his process approved, is rather inappropriate.
After-all, the process is in gear, as can be evidenced by the regulators, all one needs to do...if skeptical...is simply wait for the outcome of what is in process, then re-evaluate.
Terribly simple theory really.
Sweating a brow over what a speculator may or may not do interim...is not really time well spent.
These are simple issues in my opinion.
1) No permit...NO "commercially viable process"
2) Seems to me anyone and everyone else looking at this seems to understand that.
3) So expending resources trying to prove this or that is a bit precocious, especially hiring someone to write a white paper or reasonable facsimile, prior to permits being issued.
Not difficult to see these points.
I think you would have to look long and very very hard to find anyone invested who does NOT understand point 1 & 3.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
now
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"We're asked to piece those unverifiable data together and "connect the dots" from that indirect data to determine that P2O is really a commercially viable process?
"
WHO ASKED?
I DON'T RECALL ANYONE ASKING.
how on bloody earth did this board digress to discussions of janice's favorite prophylactic covered veggie porno pictures?
Brilliant topic for the twitter fans...facebook too!
JBII $100/SHARE price target?????
I would be very carefull about investing based on that price target ....$100/share is a lofty projection.
I am not saying it is not possible...but what if the catalyst turns out to be effective and the price does not hit $100/share?
I know that the regs are tough on analysts and promoters that use price targets....but what about regular folk?
What recourse does a person have if all is as said with the catalyst and the stock does not hit $100/share?
Sorry but that was not the question. In a loose way it might cover the DEC...but not the EPA
So let's try this again.
"What issues have they had with the EPA/DEC?"
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
One more thing...why is it that the concept of near diesel is so difficult to understand?
As we understand it...it is a mix of diesel and gasoline, and some other products.
Once separated into their associated groups ie: diesel. gas, etc
you do realize there are markets for the components once separated right?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SEEMS TO ME
that if a person continually misunderstands...or outright does not properly analyze something, that you can easily find things to be ODD.
Moreover if you refuse to accept simple logic such as the near diesel moniker, then all things become impossible to comprehend, and are easily labelled "odd"
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
one more time......what issues does jbii have with the EPA?
That question is a perfect example of "misunderstanding"
and the answer to it....will in my opinion be very revealing.
so how about it? when properly analyzed, and/or understood...seems "accuracy" is an easily challenged thing?
you betchya
What is the point?
Afraid I do not see it.
If I say I bought a system and used it to build a system to overcome a problem, and someone were to question why I used a "system" to build a "system", I would advise them to find more usefull pursuits for their time.
or is the contention with the end use for the gas in the process....?
If so....so what? Stuff changes.
Seriously is this all that is left to pick apart?
"- A year ago, Mr. Bendall said he had a $50M LOC which could be devoted to EEGC. Certainly it is Mr. Bendall's decision as to how he spends his resources, but then why do a PR if it wouldn't be devoted. Or it didn't exist? Certain optimistic posters said it was just a 'matter of time'; but one year?
"
this drivel is so old it amazes me...a year ago i knew a guy who had a credit rating such that he could command over 5 milion in credit...so bloody what
today he couldnt rub 2 nickels together
a lot can change in a month...let alone a year
get over it
All a person has to do is read the post that was orignally responded to...the freaking link was in there to begin with.
Still is in there to boot!