Addax Petroleum (fka AXC)

[nordicroots]

I do respect your opinion and insights, but, I also think everyone can agree that this has been and will continue to be a bumpy road.

Now with respect to your observations on Starcrest, I have been thinking about that situation myself. The fact is that we DID see news that they intended to do something with them (regardless of whether they are funded well enough to do so or not there WAS an MOU issued and publicized) and this was publicly stated for the benefit of the investing public's attention. And since Starcrest is associated with Chrome (and we all know this means SEO) it occurs to me that they could be the entity scooping up shares - and perhaps conveniently - without feeling the need to go through the motions of any Federal filings. I was going to ask Middy about his thoughts on this when this occurred to me earlier and it dawned on me that there was discussion about Chrome in the past not being very punctual with their filings. And we know they had a sizable stake before the toxic debt spiral the Company recently went through and throughout its course we had a lot of buying interest by all those hoping to do well with the Kenya well and it was all neatly packaged under the umbrella of the dilution insurance meme that was all the rage here for a while.

And basically my question was going to be aimed at whether an earlier filing (or in the case of an individual or entity that did not really see the need for filing but still amassed a sizable stake [and thus simply did not bother to do so]) would somehow exclude someone from having to refile for their re-establishing a percentage position by adding more shares? For example say there was an entity that controlled 40% of the Company and after the toxic convertible debt spiral they no longer held a controlling interest. If they were to buy a lot more shares to re-established a prior percentage position (because they too suffered from the dilution) is there any reason for anyone to believe they would get a pass on filing because there were only trying to get back to where they were (or for that matter hold even greater control than they did before)? I had not considered that possibility before but it has crossed my mind as we are not really seeing anything to indicate who is owning/controlling all those newly issued shares.

Maybe they see such an effort as simply making up the lost ground and making the effort to regain their controlling interest which was formerly made known - but they would be doing so at bargain basement prices - and it could easily slip notice of the investing public. Is this the sort of thing you were contemplating as well?