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.
CTB - What did I miss? Although CB said at the last shareholders' meeting that he would love to have investors to help with the drilling expenses of the Evans-Overstreet, at that time he said there were none. I have not seen any new investment programs listed on the Oil America web site and thought that AENP was limited on private investments until after the SEC sign-off, but I don't know. It would not surprise me if there were private investors in the E-O, but I do not recall seeing any PR's or SEC filings to that effect. You keep stating it as fact. Based on what information? What did I miss?
Where does the Hood County well fit into that?
Well, Pseeker, since you brought me into this and you're talking about innuendo, perhaps we should consider your whole text of the post I was responding to.
Your post #35152: "Ok, here goes. Way back when amep "voluntarily" withdrew their last registration of shares an SEC inquiry took place shortly thereafter. There were numerous violations and "possible violations reported in the filings after the inquiry. Amep suddenly became real quiet after the inquiry. There has been no communication that I've seen that states that AMEP has cleared up these violations. There has also not been a new registration since all those new shares became authorised. Why?"
1. What evidence do you have that ANEP's withdrawal of shares was NOT "voluntary"?
( Sept 07 10Q: "In response, the Company voluntarily suspended the offering and does not anticipate resuming the offering.")
2. What evidence do you have that the "SEC inquiry" was initiated by ANEP's withdrawal of shares?
(Sept 07 10Q: "As discussed previously, In May 2006, the Company received a letter of inquiry from the SEC, primarily related to its operations as a BDC and its compliance with the requirements thereto.")
3. What evidence do you have that AENP is currently in non-compliance with numerous SEC regulations?
CTB - I took Slippery's "net" figures to represent what AENP may receive after landowner royalties are deducted. I believe royalties are around 25%. Either way, I thought the December visitors reported AENP had plugged off their Ellenberger completion because of that water problem and no injection well. I remember seeing frac tanks in their pictures from AENP returning to the Barnett and refraccing the well. If so, Slippery's production figures are irrelevant and the new Barnett TRRC production levels are probably still a couple months away.
Fishforbreakfast - Don't know the date for sure, but in 2006 AENP filed for an extension and filed the 10-K on 4/18. Last year they filed on 4/2. 4/1 was on Sunday.
As far as the Field Name and Type, the TRRC info appears to be out of date. AENP's re-entry to go back into the Ellenberger may have been completed 9/4/07, but I thought due to water problems they plugged the bottom off and went back up to the Barnett and re-fracced it. Remember the frac tanks in the December pictures indicating they were still pumping off the frac water? That would seem to make it primarily a gas well. Either way, its good see that it has finally been validated!
Ponzi - Your PRI totals are correct. My totals combined PRI, LOT, and LOT Inc. production. Numbers can be deceiving. Make sure you know what you are comparing. For instance, PRI Jan.-Nov. 2004 production was 6,401. As you said, PRI Jan.-Nov. 2007 production was 3,766. Is that an increase or a decrease? (Hint: PRI currently only reports operating production from 3 leases compared to 9 leases in 2004.)
Follow the leases. AENP's purchase of PRI was completed in June 2004. See what leases PRI operated in 2004 and follow the history of the individual leases. See what you find. I think you will be surprised.
Contractor - Good question, but neither the Wilson, J. N. #02189 nor the Wilson, J. N. -B- #01829 have produced more than 100 bbl/day since 2003, so it's nothing new.
Ponzi - Up or down? Depends on what time frame you look at. Both Oct. and Nov. showed an increase in production over the previous month. Their production varies a lot from month to month, so I think it's too early to tell if that is a new trend related to the PRI production increase PR. For instance, the highest 2007 monthly combined production was May with 959 bbl, and the lowest was June with 619. Jan.-Nov. production was up with 7,976 bbl in 2007 compared to 7,853 bbl in 2006.
Fish - For production reported, I found:
Oct. - PRI 408, LOT 329, combined 737
Nov. - PRI 424, LOT 394, combined 818
Combined Jan.-Nov. 2007 production of 7,976 compared to combined Jan.-Nov. 2006 production of 7,853.
? So is Nov.
Correct, and PRI/LOM 2007 Jan.-Nov. combined production of 7,976 barrels compared to 2006 Jan.-Nov. combined production of 7,853 barrels.
TRRC update is out. PRI Nov. production was 424bbl, up from 361bbl in Nov. 2006. PRI production tends to vary a lot month to month. ProCo Oct. and Nov. production is not yet listed.
This is what I get for combined PRI (680845) and Landmen of Texas (484660 & 484661) production in barrels.
J.06 - 572
F.06 - 666
M.06 - 1019
A.06 - 683
M.06 - 799
J.06 - 457
J.06 - 686
A.06 - 777
S.06 - 645
O.06 - 844 (total to date 7,148)
N.06 - 705
D.06 - 815
Total - 8,668 for 2006
J.07 - 628
F.07 - 682
M.07 - 664
A.07 - 802
M.07 - 959
J.07 - 619
J.07 - 738
A.07 - 643
S.07 - 686
O.07 - 737 (total to date 7,158)
N.07 -
D.07 -
Total -
Fish - I've agree with the 329 bbl production with Landmen, but with PRI I still get 395 disposition and 408 bbl production. Did you drop 100 bbl when you added?
92 Schmidt lease
56 Wilson lease
260 Gray lease
408 total production
That would be a total Oct. PRI/Landmen production of 737 barrels wouldn't it? Or are my bifocals acting up again?
Fish - Where do you see 621 bbl? When I enter PRI #680845 I get 408 bbl for Oct. For Landmen #484661 I get 329 bbl for Oct. for a combined total of 737 bbl. Am I looking in the wrong place?
I think it is the actual drilling operator who files and receives the permit, not the people putting up the money. All the new wells AENP has drilled have been permitted and include a joint venture on at least one well. I personally don't see AENP contracting with a different operator just to hide a joint venture well. Why would they? AENP would still make money from the joint venture as the contractor and also retain a percentage of a successful well.
Don't know, but over 100,000 shares traded in the last half hour all at or above .40 and a close at .47 works for me.
American Energy Production
12/17/07 - close .22 - high .25 - low .15 - volume 55,387
12/24/07 - close .39 - high .45 - low .31 - volume 121,980 - 77% increase in pps
Merry Christmas to all, and may you have a safe, enjoyable time with family and friends!
I thought I'd share DD I just posted to answer someone on another board who questioned the authenticity of Freemarket's and Fish's photos from their trip last week. First, go to Google maps:
http://maps.google.com/maps
I don't know the shop garage's address, but type "515 Grant Road, Mineral Wells, Texas" in the search window and that gets you close. Keep in mind Google map satellite photos are neither real time nor current. This one seems to be around a year and a half old because it shows the Challenger rig in the shop garage yard. Push the satellite button in the upper right hand corner of the map. You should see a satellite photo with the street names listed. Zoom in as needed.
The little black rectangle on the north side of the road by the arrow is the roof of the little white "headquarters"(?) building in Freemarket's photo in post #37267. The light brown rectangle to the NNW with the row of trees on the west side is the roof of the white shop garage. You can see the white Challenger rig with its derrick lowered just south of the shop. This is a link to a photo I took in July, 2006, of the Challenger rig with the shop in the background (photo is looking NW). You can also see the "Fort Wolters Helicopter" building in the background through the center of the rig.
http://members.cox.net/tharmonamep4/Challenger%20at%20shop.jpg
On the map, go west about 1100 feet until you come to Pickett Street. (Zoom out to see street names.) About 500 feet north of Grant Road on Pickett Street is the gate to the large work/storage yard where the Phantom was first assembled. Inside the gate turn left and follow the tire tracks north and that is where the Challenger with its derrick raised was located last week in Freemarket's photo in post #37076.
This is a link to a picture I took in November, 2005, showing both an address to verify the Grant Road vicinity and the Phantom rig in the background shortly after its derrick was raised for the first time.
http://members.cox.net/tharmonamep4/Address%20sign.jpg
For you doubters, check Freemarket's post #37267 again. Compare the two photos and you will see the same "Fort Wolters Helicopter" building in both photos, but the rig derricks are different. My photo shows the Phantom which is more pointed at the top, Freemarket's shows the Challenger.
Merry Christmas to ALL!
Man Alive - Thanks.
Is the market open part of the day Monday or closed until Wednesday?
Freemarket - Is the little white building to the left AENP's? I know the white building with the five garage doors to the right is their workshop building.
Beautiful weather that day, huh?
Hayhauler, you are correct. Most of us here are not in the oil business or own mineral rights to wells. Because of divided property interests and estates, I would suspect a large percentage of royalty recipients don't even know the steps and stages involved in putting a well into production. I don't and would like to learn more, hence my questions. I thought that was a purpose of this board. Do you know the answers? Have you added to the board's knowledge base by sharing your DD results, especially any recent information? What did the mineral owners say AENP's net working interest in their lease was? You say call, but in this day of privacy protection rights, is such information freely available over the phone? You said you spent a trip to Mineral Wells finding mineral owners.
Questions. The fact that the TRRC does not show production data for a well or even have a listing for a well does not mean the well and its potential production does not exist. With AENP, there have been enough DD trip reports, pictures and especially company presentations at the two shareholder's meetings for common sense to deduce that AENP has had some unknown quantity of production from its new oil and gas wells which does not yet show up in the TRRC reports, specifically from the Nash-Murphy 1, the Padgett 11, the Padgett 12 and probably now the Evans-Overstreet 1.
1. What steps must a new well complete before it becomes certified (not sure the technical term) as a completed well and is considered by the TRRC as officially in production?
2. There has to be some quantity of production (and therefore gas and oil sold resulting in revenue being generated) during that certification process. What happens to that revenue?
a) Does a company receive the money from the buyer as the oil/gas is produced? If so, then similar revenue must already be reflected in the AENP's 10-Q reported production revenue.
b) Does the buyer or some other entity keep that money until certification is completed, or does it go into some type of escrow account until the well is certified, and then the money is released to a company? If so, would similar revenue show up in AENP's reports since they have not actually received the money?
c) Does an operator receive the money and hold it until certification, then transfer it to whichever company they are working for? In our case, since ProCo is a separate company, would that revenue show up in AENP's reports since they have not actually received the money?
Wshaw: Yes, if you dodging the issue is covering it, we covered it. Did you agree with Contractor's statement when you said "I think this should be applied to aenp also." Yes, or No?
You raised the question in post #37169. I called the company to verify and say that JC had a partner who received the other 2 million (now 80k) shares. There are no missing 2 million shares. Saying you don't like my source is not verification. Document your DD. Prove me wrong.
You claim you verified that "CB made 500,000.00 off of aenp last year". I say there is no documentation stating that CB raised his pay from 120,000 to 500,000 per year. The latest 10-Q says $138,429 compensation for the first 9 months of this year. Post links to verify your claim. Remember, if you can't verify it, "it isn't true". Prove me wrong.
Wshaw, a couple of days ago you quoted Contractor and gave out this advice: "'If it cant be officially verified, it isnt true'. I think this should be applied to aenp also." Yesterday, you read Mongo ask on Raging Bull about JC's other 2 million shares (of the original 4 million received from the purchase of OAG), picked up on his posts and ran it over here using info from Mongo's post (see post #37171). Did you verify Mongo's post to see if it was true? Did you do any individual DD to find out about the other 2 million shares before commenting about them over here? Contractor had to help you with a partial answer that was in your own post - "The purchase price was 4,000,000 shares of restricted 144 Company stock...". Did you try simply picking up the phone and asking? JC had a partner who received 2 million of those 4 million shares. They each received 2 million shares which after the R/S were converted to 80,000 shares. You call for official verification, yet you automatically took Mongo's post as truth.
You also raised the question several times here "Is it true that while the company is struggling and the shareholders are losing their a##es our ceo has raised his pay from 120,000 (which he was not worth) to 500,000.00 per year?" You asked the question in the context of being a fact. What did your DD find out? Did you verify that CB actually received such a raise to see if it was true? Did you check the quarterly reports and consider where the attorney and accountant expenses from the SEC review may have been posted? Just what is your definition of officially verify?
Whichever - That's not how I read it, so maybe Pseeker will straighten me out. I still think its just bookkeeping to bring things up to date with the SEC after AENP's changes. It has been a couple of years since AENP bought Oil America Group from JC. The "Director 10% Owner Officer Other" from Pseekers post is confusing and misleading unless you look at the SEC form itself. The category heading actually marked with an "X" is:
Other (specify below)
Officer
Pseeker's post makes it look like JC is a 10% owner. That is not what the filing says.
Patdavis - I believe that was two individual 100 share trades at .15 out of the 52,000 shares traded today. It's been interesting watching the 100 or 200 share trades driving the sp either up or down today. Even more interesting is that there is only one trader at the .23 ask, none of the others so far have followed the ask down. There is a 5 cent gap up to .28 where the next two traders are.
Whichever - You are confusing JC and JB. AENP bought JC's Oil America Group and JC received 2 million common shares in payment. You would have to check the SEC filings to find what the cash conversion factor was.
Nope, not missing anything I didn't already know. The information has already been filed in previous SEC reports, except it now lists his adjusted number of shares after the R/S. His common shares were split 1 for 25 just like everyone else's.
Direct link is:
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1111391/000110801707000843/xslF345X02/primary_doc.xml
I didn't see anything new. Looks to me like a bookkeeping filing needed after the BDC vote and the R/R reorganization. Am I missing something?
Doc - I think someone posted something about Petrozene a while ago on one of the boards. Did you find out anything about it while you were there?
OT: Hayhauler
I hope you haven't had to use your new generator yet. I saw news reports last night of the ice storm damage at Norman and I've been watching the weather radar the last couple days to track all the gunk heading my way. I'm on the border south of Wichita, but we've been lucky so far. We had our storm about 6 years ago. Simply amazing the amount of damage an inch of ice will do to trees. From just the tree and power pole damage, you would have thought a tornado had gone through. I hope you don't have to spend too much time with the chain saw in the coming days!
Pseeker, in the interests of truth, hear you go.
6) You ignore the only thing that is really relevant. AENP stated in their filing that they have taken the necessary actions to become in good standing. The timing of the change is out of their control. Please post your information AENP lied in their filing.
7) So, you are admitting that JB has not received any money for the leases, AENP has not paid him any money yet. How much payment of interest has he actually received from AENP?
8) As you requested:
Communicate Now FORM SB-2:
We were incorporated in the State of Delaware on January 31, 2000 to engage in an Internet based advertising business.
David Hancock
(President, Chairman of the Board,
Chief Executive Officer)
Bill Elliott
(Director)
Dennis J. Bash
(Vice President)
Randal Leblanc
(Director)
Dana Melroy Ransom, Jr.
(Vice President)
John c.Winkler
(Director)
I don't see any mention of Charles Bitters as a company official. Exactly how did he award the shares to his daughter?
On August 15, 2001, Communicate Now "ceased operation of its primary business product, Bizfinders.com and terminated all employees except one bookkeeper". In that quarter's filing, David Hancock was still Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. The first reference I see in SEC filings with Charles as a company officer is in a 3/29/02 filing where he is listed as a Vice-President. Care to post your information to the contrary?
9) You ignored the question. What difference does it make who operates the wells if they provide comparable service for a competitive price. What specific information do you have that ProCo overcharges or that a "bigger outfit" would provide better service under the same circumstances?
10) Post a link? No, but I was present at both the BDC special meeting and at the R/S special meeting as were others on this board who can either verify or refute that shareholders were told by the BOD that the SEC review (not investigation) was successfully completed and that there were no fines or penalties imposed. Please post your information that the BOD lied at the meeting. (Oops, don't forget someone else recorded the meeting.)
12) Once again, that was a failure to pay by Communicate Now, and in the grand amount of $77,198 including related penalties and interest. Please post your link to any failures of AENP to not pay their own Federal taxes.
Gaougogl - Nice cut and paste of Mongo's post on RB.
How many of those posts did you independently verify? Mongo has a history of only telling part of the truth or interpreting "data" to support his own conclusions. As examples:
2) Is that working capital deficit for the quarter ended 9/30/07, for the 9 months of 2007, or is it a total from when the company first started and began buying leases and equipment? It does make a difference!
4) Oh? It depends on which numbers you look at, gas or oil. Guess which way Mongo looks. Proco statewide production using the latest TRRC info available for 2007 compared to the same time period in 2006.
January - July, 2006: 4,635 bbl oil/condensate and 50,909 mcf gas
January - July, 2007: 4,223 bbl oil/condensate (9% less) and 56,738 mcf gas (11.4% more)
6) Are they in good standing now? ". . . the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries have filed the required reports and . . . will be declared in good standing in the near future." (from the latest 10-Q)
7) How much of that $2,000,000 has his brother actually been paid? I don't remember him receiving any money.
8) Which company president, the president of Communicate Now, or the president of AENP? I thought those shares were issued in 2000 by Communicate Now, a completely different business. CB was neither a company official or a Board member at that time. AENP did not start until 2002.
9) Does JB charge AENP more for operating the wells than a similar company? If not, who cares?
10) Is AENP in non-compliance with numerous SEC regulations now? I have asked Mongo numerous times to post current reports that AENP is still in non-compliance and he has not been able to do that.
12) CB took over Communicate Now after it declared bankruptcy and then turned it into AENP in 2002. Yes, they are legally responsible for them, however those ". . . unpaid Federal taxes are from the predecessor company, Communicate Now.com, Inc. . . ." (from the latest 10-Q), not due to AENP not paying its own taxes.
Those are examples of verifying the posts of others. Never accept the posts of others without doing your own DD to verify. I'll let you continue with the rest of the points.
I'll second that!
Wshaw, I see. It's OK for you to post something you don't know is true as long as you admit you don't have any idea if it's true, but people who may believe something is true should not post it because they don't have "any evidence at all". And I'm the one that's silly.
Wshaw - Do I understand this correctly, first you criticize people for saying things "without any evidence at all", then in the same paragraph you post a rumor that you don't know if it is true? Hmmm.