As a long time holder of CTUM, I can't let the comparison of the HEMI's and CTUM's CEOs go unchecked. DR has always been up front and transparent- financials filed on time, form 4s available for all to see. Keith has issued a lot of attractive PRs with no follow through to confirm their validity. I could accept the arguement PRed/posted here that secrecy is crucial if Keith hadn't been so suggestive in past PRs. Strongly inferring reserves and production and not following through is worse than silence IMHO.
Weeding through the day's posts, it's obvious that one has to "connect the dots" to complete the HEMI story. Connect at your own risk. Seems to me Keith has layed the dots out so that they'll be connected in a certain way. It's a clear case of "you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear." That is not Don's style: if it was, I'd have to seriously reconsider my investment.
As for Wilshire, there's a misconception IMO that Wilshire is here because they see fantastic opportunity in HEMI. Look at the last PR: Wilshire makes it clear that HEMI's simply a client that has requested and is no doubt paying for Wilshire's services. If they paid shares, the recent price drop/timing is easier to understand.
Then again, I waited for Cornell to damage CTUM to the tune of under .04 cents a share before buying.
GLTY
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
