Replies to post #16587 on Pilgrim Petroleum Corp. (PGPM)

[lazlotrade]

by the way, you actually should "be doing this". that has been part of the problem these past many years. i.e., shareholders are not consulted or informed as they should be both equitably, pragmatically and legally. meetings should be held (even if by teleconference), with an agenda, and an opportunity to contribute or consider, and an opportunity to vote upon actions which "should" require shareholder vote.

input is only as good as the information on which it is based. responses would be better if the shareholders of pgpm had been kept as informed and if information had been disclosed just to the extent that a listed company discloses to its shareholders, or even to the extent president joe is required to disclose to his co-shareholder sons in "joe and sons sushi bar and bait shoppe, inc.", operating 8 months out of the year with 3 employees and a sushi chef/bar back named raul, from the garage behind the bus stop, on the corner of elk and vista streets in crested butte colorado (fictitious).

just a thought for the future.

misfit laz (now i am really done)

[Dallas66]

Bottom line is we need a positive cash flow. But not at the expense of being bent over and not even kissed.

First some questions.

So Pilgrim does currently have some kind of cash flow?

The plugged ACLY wells...are they our original wells?

If we take back the leases....who is responsible for the fines?

what would/could be the cost and time to clear the red tags and have the wells viable again if we took them back?

IF we were to re-acquire the leases...how responisble would it be to keep them and invest for a viable return...or possibly dangle them on the end of a stick and see what kind of offers from a "real" company might come in?

Based on the "original" Pinedo valuation of $40 million value, it appears we sacrificed 75% of the "value" for a $10 mil note.

Renegotiated new note - Require at minimum cash and/or preferred ACLY shares at no less than 75% of the $10 mil owed...with 75% being all cash and 125% value being a combination of 50% cash and 75% preferred stock with a dividend payment of 5% a year for each year of note term. If they keep the leases and move into production, we get a pre-negotiated % of net profits over and above. If they sell the leases - we get a % of profits equal to 125% of negotiated note value, and a % of rights to the wells for 2 - 4 - 6 yrs.

Again, the bottom line is we need cash flow...POSITIVE cash flow. But not at the expense of letting them off the hook for either a responsible value of the leases, or the leases returned in whole, and unencumbered.

[downsideup]

If you (PGPM) already own Arcland... and the debt means you do own Arcland, lock, stock, barrel and lease... why would you need to sue them to get the properties back ?

The announced face amount on the note was always said to have been $40 million ?

Where'd the other $30 million go ?

If they don't have the money (LOL!!), just take Arcland. The shell and the properties are all they have ? The properties are encumbered... so...

Take Arcland... All of it. PGPM should have owned 85% of Arcland before, now should own 99.9% of Arcland after "settling" a fraction of the debt...

There won't ever be any $$$ available as long as Bryan runs Arcland... so... fire him... take the company... as that is the only "value" there is left...

Take it... then, only after PGPM owns it, strip it of any remaining assets while settling the Arcland debt, and then sell the "cleaned up" shell...

No point negotiating with them, when you should be negotiating with yourself...

JMHO

[awesomebummer]

Hey, PGPM COO, you said you shouldn't be doing this!


But MUCH appreciated, for your efforts to communicate with us. If we offer bad advice, please understand we have limited info and limited related knowledge of these areas.

Further, you wrote the following:

"5. Court case to get properties could last for months if not years."

and "Arcland is asking to re-negotiate the notes."

Getting the properties is not the only reason to file (or threaten to file) a lawsuit. As one defendent stated during the Watergate trials "when you got them by the balls, their hearts soon follow..." Threatening to name someone publicly and claiming they've committed some wrongdoing usually gets someone's attentive reaction. The status quo has not worked, and will not work going forward.

Also, you state above the phrase "is asking." That means Arcland (which really means its principal officers and/or board of directors) knows YOU are holding the beating cane. OK, you know all this, but why walk so gingerly?

The PGPM officers who transferred the assets of PGPM to Arcland are almost as responsible for the condition these assets are now in, as are the Arcland folks. (Of course, the individuals of the two companies involved may be the same, just wearing different hats! Re: you are the only one who has told us some details).

Anyway, good luck to us all and it sounds like you are working very hard for the good of all PGPM interests.