You're right in each of your points. I want to add that, we would not have held this stock for so long if there had been no positive consideration. At this point there is not much to generate positive consideration since there has been little to no information for almost a year other than the note about the $2,000,000 credit line that has been established to fund a revamp of the Michel facility southeast of Wibaux. There have been no updates on the OK Crude facility, the Waldo facility, the Gillette facility or the Texas facility. The Waldo facility has been abandoned and I think it is the one that has inspired a mandate for cleanup. The PR was worded in a positive light (sort of) but I don't think it deserves an atta-boy. That's like being told by your parents to clean up your room and take out the trash when you're old enough to know it's your job anyway. Maybe the OK Crude facility needs a cleaning too, since the equipment had been moved a couple of years ago and the rest pretty much abandoned.
There has been absolutely no word at all on the Texas facility. Even I can pretty well guess there'll be no movement on the Yemen action. The big problem is, it was reported this spring that Taylor said the past due and Methuselistically late SEC filings would be, in part, submitted by the end of April.
That has been proven to be a damn lie. It was Luken that posted it. Just the other day, he said that he knows Peter had nothing to do with the paying of shares for promotion to MONK. The SEC action filing says otherwise; maybe not personally but Peter is in the chain of command and therefore owns the culpability though he still may not own the responsibility.
The stuff I posted the other day on reverse mergers, I posted because as I read through it, there were so many points in it that were just so close to the actions that the scenario depicted that have occurred with Green Oasis Environmental. Some of them, exact. If you didn't bother reading it, you might want to reconsider. The few PRs that have been disseminated lately (all two of them) have been so very vague that, if that is the intention, it seems so deceptive and if it is not, it appears that whomever has been writing them as a professional is quite inept in the profession.
As for posting seemingly negatively suggestive material, if one is doing so to shake the trees, it could have a positive effect for a buyer using fire to fight fire. What I would do, if I were Peter and serious about the success this corp as a viable business is disregard the good ol' boy network this looks like and get rid of some damaging baggage. I'd start with the PR rep and the in house legal counsel. But, I'm not Peter. I'm just a shareholder. As of now, what I see isn't very attractive. If I had more to lose, I might cut and run but there's really not a great deal at stake at this point so there's little to cut and run from.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
