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.
Reazo, likely the comment was based on the same thought process that was used when he stated he expects the market cap to be less than $78,000. A statement like that doesn't even involve a thought process IMO.
There you go again, Manti... stating your opinion like it is an all knowing fact.
"There's no way they can fund it."
Unless you are a member of the Hemi management and go to their day to day meetings YOU don't know what they can or can't do. You can make assumptions but that's about it.
I agree with you that tanking likely makes the most sense when oil prices are on the rise but disagree about this being the ONLY reason to tank oil. There are tax considerations as well.
Hey Badge, even if Hemi sold an unused asset and some stock to maintain the debt free status, do you not agree that they are still in extremely good shape? 87mil shares o/s, actual revenue, paid for assets in several states, no debt which means no debt payments nor interest payments, and more.
Many stocks out there have far more shares o/s, no real assets, and STILL HAVE HUGE DEBT. Debt free in these economic times is very good for Hemi.
I think your "argument" would be a bit more valid if 1) Hemi had to sell a core asset that was part of the current business strategy. This was not the case. They sold an asset most here placed little to no value on anyway and some didn't even recognize as "real". And 2) Hemi had to sell an extreme number of shares just to make ends meet. Again, this was not the case. I'm not sure why people keep forgetting or conveniently overlooking the fact that while, yes, Hemi's share count has increased, their asset holdings have increased at a multiple much greater than the shares. Shares are being used responsibly IMO and used to increase share holder value. If shares needed to be issued to pay for the flood damage or during a hard month then by all means this is definitely looking out for the shareholders as the other option is just closing up shop.
So, when looking at the bigger picture, it is hard for me to see how somebody wants to complain about Hemi being a debt free company with the info I listed above (only 87mil shares o/s etc) if they used some stock to do it. If the shares went up 200mil since we've been here and no assets were acquired then, yeah, I can see the argument. But, I don't see the argument as things stand now.
Exactly, texas4286. I agree completely. Some are unable to see anything positive about Hemi's current status even when 99% of other stocks out there have more shares, little to no assets, and large debt.
Hemi has no debt and it isn't like they had to sell 200mil shares to obtain and maintain this status! If they've sold some unused assets and/or even some shares to maintain a debt free status WHILE STILL HAVING less than 100mil o/s is something that I consider very good and positive.
Think of this too... they put $1.5m into repairs for their core leases KS. They have additional assets in several other states. They banked $475k not long ago. Their current market cap is less than $700k. Think about that for a bit.
Well said, Big Mur.
In your abundance of research there, Sputnik, instead of being on the constant attack of Hemi, why not look at how Hemi is positioned as compared to 99% of other pinks and OTCBB stocks?
Their marketcap is still ludicrously low, their o/s count is still extremely low for most any stock one could compare to, they have no debt (that is near unheard of), actually have a product instead of just an idea, have real income, have real assets, ect. ect.
You can't deny that you'll be hard pressed many other pinksheet/OTCBB stocks that are still as well off as Hemi even after a terrible 2008. For just one moment, look outside that little box and think about the bigger picture and business plan.
There you go again, Sputnik.
While in message board land the definition of dilution is typically the addition of shares by a company with little to no shareholder value in return. However, the TRUE definition of dilution is the addition of just one single share to company's o/s count.
Since you ONLY go on strict definitions (as evident by your insistence that the t-trades MUST be additional shares being traded because you found the definition on a web page somewhere) then what we can gather from your near clairvoyance insight today is that you are mighty proud of yourself because Hemi has issued at least ONE additional share since their last update of slightly less than a year ago. Good job! LOL! A pinksheet company that exists as a public company to issue shares, issued some shares. Yep, that's quite the insight! I don't think that anybody here thought Hemi issued ZERO shares since their last update so your insight that you are so proud of is considered "normal" for the rest of us. What you consider is what the shares were used for, the current status of the company, and what they intend to do with any money received from shares (buy cars for the women or drill wells for the business?).
I tend to see the insight as being completely OFF, not on. Like your insight to the t-trades? How about your insight to how you knew for FACT that a trade made during the day was done by a MM so a higher t-trade could late be posted (when that trade as actually mine. LOL)? Or your insight and faith in the pinksheet rating system? I could go on but don't see the need
Yeah, pretty much all of today's volume is shares being "picked up" on the bid. But, it's not the "picking up" that gives the t-trade... it's the "giving out", whether to the bid or ask, is where the t-trade looks to come from.
Also, it should be .0077 unless there are more trades to the ask which would then bump up the "calculated discounted" price for the shares shorted/sold during the day (not more shares bought/sold as some like to think).
Come on badge, it is obvious you are trying to trap Kels.
By their OWN ADMISSION their website isn't up to date for the current year or even any previous year. It is a bit foolish and silly for you to try to get Kels to say their production information is reliable then use this "reliable" word towards their production data when they themselves admit to their data not being complete.
It has absolutely nothing to do with being reliable/unreliable. It is some data but may not be all data. Why try to make this into something it is not?
Why do you think the people of this board can answer your last two posts?
Nope. It is a reporting of shares sold/shorted during the day.
You obviously don't recall 1/22/09 where we had a 610,000 volume day with where all shares were traded at the bid of .008 and then we had an afterhours print of .0077 for EXACTLY 610,000 shares. Or where the exact volume for the day of 10,800 was then shown in an afterhours. Then, just the other day on the 23rd if one suspicious trade is removed the trades at the ask equaled the afterhours volume.
So, what you are trying to tell me is that on the day of 610,000 volume that this "big seller" then sold the same exact volume afterhours. Or, on the very light volume day of 10,800 this "big seller" again decided to exactly match the volume for the day with a piddly 10,800 of his millions??? I can't believe you are still on the kick that these are additional shares being traded afterhours when it has been shown over and over that's NOT the case. It is to the point of being comical that you aren't putting this together. But, I'll entertain you a bit and throw this one out if you want to continue down this road... what about the afterhours "trade" that is higher than both the bid and the ask at market close? How do you explain that with your "selling" theory?
Oh, and BTW, common sense dictates that no single shareholder holds the amount we have seen in these afterhours.
No problem, REAZO!
imshredin2, there is a 2nd report and maybe even a 3rd. The first report was completed in Feb of 07 and was a limited report of only oil reserves on the 5 leases in Woodson County KS. Since that time, Hemi has greatly added to its lease acreage in this area so it would make sense to then include some of these other properties in their reserves... but they needed to perform another report to do so.
Now the reason I say they may be working on the 3rd report is because in the annual report the probable reserves were revised. How would the probable be revised unless an additional evaluation were done? So, we can surmise that at least some type of study were done after the initial report and Keith felt it necessary to revise the probable to a lower number. The proven stayed the same and that is what is important because proven reserves are what the industry uses to primarily determine asset value.
So, the report being talked about in the Apr 17th PR I quoted is not the "original" report. It is an updated and expanded report to the original. Updated in the sense that it should include the gas on the 5 leases and expanded in that it'll include additional leases.
Since it is a report in progress, some areas have likely been completed while other areas have not. And, you'll likely not see the entire report... IMO, it would be foolish to release the entire report because 99% of it will be information that is useless to the general public but very valuable to local competition. What is usually released to the general public in these type reports is the general high level findings and not the detailed info about the different formations, their depths, etc.
Dang, Sputnik, I thought you were familiar with how all this works. I'll educate you a bit
MM themselves only set the bid and ask when they are shorting or covering a short or when they have, maybe, an inventory and want to sell some. Investors like myself set the bid and ask all other times and the MMs post our bids/asks. I, personally, am the one who set the lowest ask for 15 seconds a little bit ago. ME. The MM posted it for me and did so instantly. The ask of .011 went away, instantly, when I canceled my order. MMs do what investors tell them to do unless they are shorting or covering a short. Should be an easy concept for ya.
You can't say that investors are not involved and then in the same line say a "nebulous short seller" like short selling isn't possible. That's just silly. LOL
The same person who bought the 9836 shares 6 minutes earlier for a total of 10,000 shares. The order was filled in more than one lot.
Again, looking just a little deeper than a first glance would have given you the answer.
Is this the type of thinking through and research that we can expect from your Definitive Report. I sure hope you are putting more thought into your report than what has been displayed as of late.
Nope. What the ask being raised to 0.012 shows is that the next seller (or shorter?) is at 0.012. The fact that only one MM is at 0.012 and the next one is at 0.02 shows that either there are no real sellers between those prices or the shorters have stepped back for a minute to evaluate things and are not willing to continue to short, at the moment, below .02.
So, "running scared" as kels put it is much more accurate than saying a "MM" increased the ask. I don't expect them to stay scared so to speak but do think they are "evaluating" right now so IMO Kels is much more correct than a "MM" putting the ask at .012. Do you even know how bid/ask works?
Hold on and let me prove it...
Just put a small sell order for .011 and the ask got lowered to .011. Canceled the order and the ask went back to .012. So, again, I type with facts, and substantiated opinions/data and you type with ?
Whatever, Sputnik. Believe what you will. However, I'll bet you a beer that even the other mostly negative posters on here don't even agree with you. Will they step up the plate and indicate that you're wrong? We'll see but I won't hold my breath.
Regardless of the formal definition of a "Form T" trade, what we see in Hemi being reported as "Form T" trades in the afterhours are not additional shares being traded. Do a little research and studying of LevelII and Time & Sales and once you understand, you'll come back and agree with me.
imshredin2, I don't call it a fail to deliver. Just the other day it was being proclaimed on here how a reserves report needs to be done CORRECTLY and with the correct data. Doing these correctly and more importantly, to the proper oil and gas industry standards, takes time and DATA. Looks to me like Hemi is not rushing this and is trying to do it correctly. How can Hemi please you guys? On one hand it must be done correctly and then in your view it doesn't seem like it matters how they do it so long as they just put "something" out. Sorry, doesn't work like that. It seems like you don't really understand all that it takes to perform a reserves report correctly.
And, again, IMO you are focusing on the wrong pieces of information. A report saying x production can be pointless and/or not tell the entire situation. What Hemi has told us (debt free and paying the bills with the production of oil) is far more important than a report of x bopm when you won't know how to use that data. Example... what's better... 2500 bopm with all bills being paid, money banked, and enough for future development or 5000 bopm from a company where it takes 10000 bopm just to make the debt payments? Simple example but goes to show it is more important IMO for us to know that oil production is keeping them cash flow positive than it is to just know a bopm number.
imshredin2, pay a little closer attention to what was posted before getting all excited.
REAZO said "I'll call it a rumor, but suppossedly that is being updated as new wells are drilled, etc. "
That looks to me like he heard it talked about but maybe wasn't sure where he heard it so called it a "rumor" to be on the safe side. I then posted where Hemi put in a PR exactly what he thought could have been a rumor. Hemi putting in a PR that they are working on an expanded and updated PR is no rumor so why you think this PR is just a rumor is a bit baffling. Would you like an actual link?
A reserves report is not a book report. They take time and data. I'm fairly certain Hemi didn't get the number of wells drilled that they anticipated so one should expect the report to take a while. You can't just "wish" a reserves report and have it come true. You have to have the proper data and if they are still getting the data then the report is still in progress.
Yep, Sputnik, I agree that what you have there is a copy and paste of a definition off a website of a Form T trade.
However, I find it quite interesting you fail to point out that pinksheet and OTCBB stocks ONLY trade during normal market hours and do NOT trade pre or post market. A typical Form T seen in pinks and OTCBB are normal type trades (normal volume at either the bid or ask) executed just prior to 4pm but due to a possible 90 second delay in the reporting, show up as a Form T. What we see here in our Form T trades is not this. Period. With all the research you have been doing and the time you have been spending on this board with the talk of these t trades over the last year plus, I'm absolutely amazed you just posted what you did and actually think these are additional shares being traded.
So, we seem to have a conundrum here since you want to use only strict definitions in your thorough (or not so maybe?) thought process. How can one have a trade executed after normal market hours in a market that doesn't allow trading after normal market hours??? That should make one's head explode, eh? LOL
While we're talking about thought processes, think about the overall meaning of "definitive." I wonder if a definitive type paper should be written by the type who is narrow minded and stops their "research" when a quick answer is found which suits their agenda or if this type paper is better written by the type who looks at the big picture and both sides? That's an interesting question.
Hey REAZO, the updated and expanded reserves report is no rumor
From the April 17th PR...
An updated and expanded reserves report is in progress on our leases with wells in Woodson County, Kansas. The well logs and core samples from several new wells that we have drilled in this area will help expand our oil and gas reserves. This report will also begin to verify blanket geological formations of our much larger virgin leases' acreage that are adjacent and contiguous to the west and to the northwest of our five mature producing leases whose total is approximately three square miles.
Sputnik, that's not what it looks like to me and I think Manti will even agree with me on this one. That was not a 775,000 share sale. That was a reporting of a combination of IMO mostly the shares traded at both the bid and the ask with with a reduction in the price for the total shares whether at the bid or ask. We have had enough days where the t-trades have exactly equaled the days volume but with the slight discount... have you not been paying attention? Or, do you actually understand all that has been being posted about these t-trades but thought it looked "better" for you to say the afterhours was an actual selling of 775,000 more shares. Like I said, I doubt Manti will even agree with this being an actual sale of that many more shares.
I could even give you details from just a few days ago about how the afterhours exactly equaled the days volume minus a suspicious trade during the day which I later found out in PM from another investor may not have been a correct posting for time and sales. I could go into details about this with an explanation but I feel I'm only wasting my time so will just leave it at what I said above... the t-trades are NOT IMO additional shares being sold (or even bought using your logic the other day when the afterhours was higher than the bid).
Thanks. And lookie there... I see the word proved in there!
Hemi has already shown proof of their reserves. No oil company is under any obligation to show YOU or their competition a full report containing all info about their reserves. Oil companies will generally provide the highlights of the reserves report to the general public. For you to think any oil company has an obligation to provide the report to show "proof" is nearly laughable. Hemi Energy HAS shown proof of the proven reserves on the five leases in Woodson County, Kansas by issuing the press release on 2/23/07.
"The proven oil reserve as submitted by Geosystems Engineering, Inc., Dallas, Texas to Hemi Energy Group, Inc. (HMGP) is 2.15 million proved BOE and the probable reserve of 5.1 million BOE for Hemi’s five leases in Woodson County, Kansas."
The probable was later lowered, with the proven staying the same, in a later annual report.
You may choose to not believe anything ever written in a press release but don't come on here trying to make people believe that Hemi is just making this stuff up.
You also go on to make some assertion that Hemi is making a big deal about their unproven reserves. Where have they done this? Hemi knows the rules and when Keith has determined the asset value of the reserves I'll bet they did only use proven reserves because that's how it's done. Unproven reserves are listed and mentioned but that's about as far as they go because, like you said, they are unproven. It's not that difficult to understand.
I'm still in awe that you think it "normal" and even your God Given Right to see the entire report. It's like going to Coca Cola and demanding to know their recipe or Kentucky Fried Chicken and demanding to know the 11 secret herbs and spices. LOL!
Hemi released information about what is important to investors... a proven reserve report for the oil reserves on the 5 leases. An oil AND gas updated and expanded report is still in progress to include the gas and more of their leases. But, this in no way says the one already issued "doesn't exist" like you are looking to conclude because there is no "proof" of it. The proof is in the press release and annual report that it does exist. So many of you guys come on here and make these crazy claims and like to spout how you can't believe anything that is ever written in a press release and blah blah blah but never do anything about it. If you're so confident that nothing is "real" then get a lawyer and do something about it. The constant drivel and one liners by some of you guys is getting old... at what point will you actually do something about it? I suspect NEVER because you have nothing. It is so easy to spout off on a message board "there is no proof!!!" and then when questioned for details the best that is ever gotten is something along the lines of "because I feel it in my bones!". LOL!!! That's hardly worth the time you guys spend trying to discredit this stock.
I'd expect a person who has been around the block and understands how things work to know that a share price of $0.007 vs $7.00 makes little difference in the decision to short or naked short a stock. A lot more goes into shorting than just the thought of "Hmm... can I cover lower?"
Or, somebody sure wants IN today. The bid was raised since yesterday for the buyer to get the shares they wanted.
Also, I don't think it is somebody that wants "out" as you said. And I don't say this based on "nothing" either. I say this based on the trading action. You don't have 357k trades to the bid go through in under 5 minutes which exactly removes all bid support but doesn't lower the ask unless the exact amount to GIVE is known. Only MMs know this. So, I'd extrapolate this to say that most likely a good portion of the shares sold this morning were either shorted or being "sold" by the phantom seller with an apparent unlimited number of shares available to them. If that's the case, we'll see an afterhours trade based on today's trades to the bid whereas we saw an afterhours trade yesterday based on trades to the ask.
So, I don't see today's action as "somebody wants out". And I think mine is more likely... you provided a one liner with no explanation whereas I provided a detailed explanation why I disagree.
What about yesterday's action? You only comment on today how "someone sure wants out today" with the 5 trades at the bid.
So, I'll add that somebody sure wanted IN yesterday because there were 9 trades at the ask and only one $12 trade at the bid. The total volume for the two days is about 50/50 for bid vs ask trades. Why some of you continuously try to spin everything possible you can to the negative is something more than just myself, I'm sure, are interested in knowing.
Also, the selling you post about was done at a bid of what yesterday's ask was. So, looking at the bigger picture instead of just a small snapshot like you did, the trading action for the last two days can be viewed as more to the positive side instead of the doom and gloom theme of your post.
I just saw you indicate...
"IMO nothing is official unless it is in a PR without the Safe Harbor Act foot noted."
That's a far cry different than "only complaining about forward looking statements". If you didn't actually mean what you put in the other post then simply indicate so and we'll move on as I was only commenting on this particular statement and how it was a bit off the wall IMO, so to speak.
If you are aware of what it does then why did you make the statement that you don't believe anything is official when it includes that statement?
Badge, while I don't think your friend understands the Safe Harbor Act at all, I thought you did. Was I wrong? Your statement of "IMO nothing is official unless it is in a PR without the Safe Harbor Act foot noted." makes little sense if said by a person who understands the intent of the Safe Harbor Act. Maybe you don't fully understand it?
First off, most (all?) pinksheet and OTCBB companies have a form of this in the last paragraph of their press releases. To say that it isn't official unless the PR doesn't contain the Safe Harbor Act is flat wrong.
It is very similar to McDonald's having to put on their coffee cups: "Caution: Coffee is HOT!" Well DUH! But, in today's times people sue for anything and can get millions of dollars for their skin turning red for 30 minutes because they spilled coffee on themselves because they weren't "warned" they might get burnt if they spill it on their lap.
If a company were to say that they believe widget production to exceed last months widget production based on current orders and then the factory burns to the ground when arsonists set it on fire, it used to be that investors could then sue the company because they didn't follow through with what they believed would happen. The Safe Harbor Act reduces the number of frivolous lawsuits.
The Safe Harbor Act protects a company ONLY from forward looking type statements. It doesn't protect them from matter of fact statements that were made fraudulently and known to be not truthful.
Example from the Jan 10, 2007 press release: "We believe Hemi will receive a favorable report based on its extensive library of geological information, collected over many years, and conversations with previous local oil and gas operators, who worked our Woodson County leases in the past. We expect to release this full report not later than mid-February." Those are forward looking statements protected by the Safe Harbor Act. However, the very next sentence of "Hemi's Montgomery County, Kansas lease near the town of Cherryvale is already producing oil from two of the six mature wells." is not a forward looking statement and thus if made and known not to be true, you can sue and put them in jail. As a follow-up, most would agree the report was favorable but, it was not released until Feb 23rd so even though they said they expected to release it before mid month, they were a week late. The "expected" wording and Safe Harbor Act prevents investors from being able to sue a company because what they "expected" did not exactly happen.
Anyway, I think you completely miss the point of the Safe Harbor Act statements made in nearly all press releases by pinksheet and OTCBB companies. If you still don't see what I've tried to point out and still want to say nothing is official with a Safe Harbor type footnote then it is pointless for you to invest in pinksheet and OTCBB stocks. Even big board stocks that have predictions or expectations often include one of these type paragraphs. So, you'll want to stay away from those too! :)
Manti, you say "Seeing the 504's that hemi has out there to me explains the t trades."
In most cases I'd agree about 504s being a candidate for what we are seeing. There are a couple reasons why I don't see these as being old 504s. One, aren't they only valid for 12 months? That should have had them stop (if 504s) in April of 2007 and that is around when they started! But, the main reason is these have been happening since the .30s and money volume FAR exceeds the $1mil max allowed per 504.
So, as far as I can conclude, it is not possible for them to be old 504s.
I don't see that as a possibility for many reasons.
1) The volume of these afterhours is very close to or has exceeded the total number of o/s shares two years ago! That by itself makes your theory not possible IMO.
2) A normal investor selling shares, that were once restricted, directly through a MM like this is not common and basically unheard of in a stock like this where the people who did receive restricted shares individually only received a small fraction of what we are seeing in the volume of these afterhours. There is no reason for a single person to go to these means to sell the dollar amount that would have been given and for every single farmer, land owner, service provider, etc to go to this extreme is not likely.
3) While my first example should be enough reason to conclude it isn't restricted shares coming off restriction, even if it is believed it "could" be, this is not how restricted shares work. You have mentioned before that it could be shares coming off restriction and I have yet to even understand this because 144 restricted shares are issued just like regular shares except there is some type of 144 stamp placed on the share certificate. Once shares are able to come off restriction, it isn't "automatic" so to speak. The 144 share certificate is returned to the transfer agent and is "exchanged" for a free trading share certificate of the same amount. This free trading share certificate can then be put back under the mattress or submitted to a brokerage to be placed into an electronic account (exactly like those who got HMGP certs and then sent them back to the brokerage). They are then sold exactly the same way you would sell any other stock in your account. There is no shifty odd MM involvement when shares come off restriction and then put into an electronic trading account which would cause us to see these afterhours prints. Yes, I can see where it might be possible for somebody to take a massive share cert they didn't think they could sell in the open market and work out some deal directly with a MM but, again, the volume of these is too great and just the fact that the volume exceeds, or is damn close to exceeding, the outstanding shares two years ago rules this out.
I'm not going to claim I have my finger on exactly what they are but I think I've given a good enough argument to say the chances of them being formerly restricted shares is slim to none
I don't think so, texas, because I have had days where I have bought stock and my buy looked to be part of the afterhours. Friends too have bought large amounts where it was fairly obvious that some of the shares they bought were in the afterhours.
But, I wouldn't completely throw out the idea of the afterhours being the "other side" of a single sided trade that occurred during the day. Meaning, a "normal trade" during the day has a seller and a buyer. For these afterhours, I think it possible, that the volume is for the sell side and the buy side by the investor (whether it be at the bid or ask) is the trade on time and sales during normal trading hours. I say "single sided trade" because I question whether the shares being used for the sale actually exist (shorting). Thus, when the afterhours volume is included in the day's volume, the volume is actually artificially inflated. An example would be for today... today's volume shows up as 21,600 but I think the actual "real" volume today was only the 10,800 trade at 12:18. The volume is double what it should be because the 10,800 afterhours is only a "print" for tracking the transaction(s) which happened during the day. Just a theory but seems to make the most sense to me.
And with a spin... while not all that unusual to be able to match up the afterhours (easy today with only one trade and the afterhours exactly equals that trade!) with the days trading, it is a bit unusual to see the afterhours at the same price as the trade.
"Money" is not the only thing on the mind of a lease owner when they lease to Hemi. Hemi has a reputation of taking care of the land on which they work. That, in some cases, can rank above a few extra points for a land owner who cares about the condition of his property.
You are comparing apples and oranges. You purposely bold face a paragraph which talks about wells in excess of $1mil (this is not a Hemi well) as well as a paragraph in the same section about typical leasing percentages related to these types of wells. You then try to compare the leasing percentage to Hemi. Apples and oranges.
Is this the type of research and conclusions we all can expect for the "definitive report"?
Sigh.
From my understanding, what Hemi negotiates with the land owner is fair for the area and types of wells. The difference for Hemi, as compared to some others, is they have 100% working interest so all money collected goes just to the land owner and Hemi and not 3rd and 4th parties. That is why Hemi is able to pay the bills and bank oil/money without "stellar" production. They've done it smart all along. Read some of my older posts where I talk about how Hemi with 1,000 bopm production is likely far better off than others with 4k to 5k in production due to no debt/interest payments and nobody else dipping their hands in their barrel of oil.
They can still keep their big well "secret" (that everyone knows about anyway, LOL!)....
The purpose of a tight hole is not to keep the entire well a secret, Jag. An example for ya... while I may know where you live, I don't have access to what is in your top dresser drawer. The location and general build of your home are known by many but the contents and details are "secret" to a select few. View your home as a "tight hole" to give you a better understanding.
Trying to demean others can, at times, make one look a bit foolish, eh?
Actually, I think the so called t-trade happened at 13:02:09 for 319,942 shares at .0073. I even talked about it in this post...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=35337042
where it looked like one of the normal "prints" that are seen afterhours.
I can't recall a time (since these started) where we have had this kind of volume and nothing for an afterhours print. If you take the 319k off todays volume and do the math, it equates to what a typical afterhours print would have been had they done it afterhours.
VERT was on the ask at the time, gave up all the shares this morning then went to .02 after the trades to the bid and large apparent "print". Pretty strage but also pretty odd that I even suggested that might be the t-trade for the day and then we don't see one. I can't recall in recent memory having this much volume and NO t-trade so it makes sense.
100% success rate on horizontal drilling. Two successful horizontal wells drilled you say. But you "forgot" to mention that only TWO have been drilled! Is that not what the data you provided shows?
Looks like a 100% success rate to me! And lookie there... the oldest one drilled in 1991 is still a producing oil some 18 years later! Go Hemi!
Wow, something that in your post sounds so darn negative is actually very positive because in reality, a 100% success rate and all wells drilled are still producing... even after 18 years.
Was that a rookie negative spin post you put up? Surely not