SCUEF revoked:

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/34-76387.pdf

SCUEF SEC Admin Proceeding for Financials delinquencies:

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/34-75680.pdf

nice spread and pull back here. We could see a nice dead cat bounce again.

SCUEF is getting attension and momentum

SCUEF is looking great at this level

Duplicate no delete?

At one point in time, SCU had something like 80+ million shares out.

Post bankruptcy, although I have not been out to Wyoming to check, it is my understanding that some operations proceed. As far as I know, Keith Knapstad still holds the company. Unless I am mistaken, his wife has a big chunk as well. They were living in the area for awhile, and bought a local business or two. I think they were originally from some kind of Denver money, or high-energy go-getter entrepeneur sort of background. The two still have money, just not big enough money for bragging rights and executive jets. Between the two of them, they probably have a large handful of small companies.

It is possible that they are slowly acquiring all the shares, thereby giving themselves (and probably a few backers) the means of taking it private. It costs a lot of money to stay up on the big exchanges. I'm guessing they keep the company as active through bankruptcy so that it can eventually be more easily acquired rather than rebuilt/reconstructed as a business entity. Until such time as natural gas prices go up enough to make a difference, I suppose it will all just putter along.

That's all I know and all I presume.

Still more pecking away. Does anyone know what is going on here?

I keep seeing the slow pecking at this stock. a few thousand buys a day. Does anyone know what's going on?

WOW!!!! TODAYS TRADE, 600 SHARES AT .0006. TOTALS: .36 CENTS. They realy want something, but what is it???

They obviously posted that trade for some reason. They wish the public to buy or sell at these levels. But it's over my head. Can't figure it out. Probably they just want the trade to appear at a price, not how many shares were traded.

lol, the $1.8 trade got you thinking and wondering! eom

Watch Out. That was a whole one dollar eighty cent trade. I really wish I knew what was the mm's mind. then maybe I could help.

Plan Of Reorganization--the plan to be adopted upon emergence from bankruptcy.

What does POR stand for?

Barchart -> Has it as Strong buy ->http://www.barchart.com/quotes/stocks/SCUEF

Yes.. it must be pretty much a shell at this point. Haven't caught up on SCUEF for a while.

you can still buy and sell this stock, right?

Nice day here for this blast from the past. I can remember when thhis got listed on the Toronto exchange and went from about 2.25 to 3.50 on that. FLOTA where are you,lol?

Correction: that's docket 1234.

I just read (again) on page 21 of docket 1242, that equity is to be cancelled here. You got any different ideas? tia

1

1

1

1

Equity would be cancelled under Powder River Basin POR.

docket 1091, Pacer

The Reorganization Cases are being jointly administered under Case No. 08-27887 ABC.
8K 1/7/09

Any “ownership change” could limit our ability to utilize our net operating losses carryforwards: Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended (the “Internal Revenue Code”), a corporation is generally allowed a deduction in any taxable year for net operating losses carried
over from prior years. A corporation’s use of its net operating loss carryforwards is generally limited under section 382 of the Internal
Revenue Code if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change.” When an “ownership change” occurs pursuant to the implementation of a
plan of reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code, the general limitation under section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code may not apply if
certain requirements are satisfied under either section 382(l)(5) or section 382(l)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. We may experience an
“ownership change” in connection with the Plan, but we have not yet established the Plan and determined whether we will be eligible for or
rely on the special rule under section 382(l)(5) or the special rule under section 382(l)(6). Assuming we rely on section 382(l)(5) of the Internal
Revenue Code, a second “ownership change” within two years from the effective date of the Plan would eliminate completely our ability to
utilize our net operating loss carryovers. Regardless of whether we rely on section 382(l)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code, an “ownership
change” after the effective date of the Plan could significantly limit our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards for taxable years
including or following such “ownership change.”


http://esignal.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingCONVPDF1?SessionID=hfI8H5aAHl3OHZh&ID=6256276

One question is, does SCUEF have tax assets to protect?

Found this>>

Appellant Brief due by 8/6/2010. Appellee Brief due by 8/20/2010

Total Image ManagementTM
https://secure.leasingsource.com/servlet/Satellite?lsb=GE&category=618&pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/Render&c=Page&cid=1163067460482

Storm Cat is appealing the denial of its rejection of the "Total Image Management Agreement" in a Colorado bk court, in connection with GE Capital leasing.

1:10-cv-01523-JLK or AP In re: Storm Cat Energy (USA) Corporation
bankruptcy case no, from 6/28/10

8K from 7/15/10


Item 5.02. Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.



Resignation of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer



On July 9, 2010, the principal executive officer and principal financial officer of Storm Cat Energy Corporation (the “Company”), Joseph M. Brooker, provided the Company with notice of his resignation as Chief Executive Officer and principal financial officer of the Company. The effective date of Mr. Brooker’s resignation from these positions is July 31, 2010.



Appointment of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer



On July 14, 2010, the board of directors of the Company (the “Board”) appointed Keith Knapstad, who has been serving as the Company’s President and Chief Operating Officer since July 2, 2007, to serve as the Company’s principal executive officer, with his title to remain President and Chief Operating Officer, to be effective as of August 1, 2010. In addition, on July 14, 2010, the Board appointed Christopher Naro, who has been serving as the Company’s contract chief financial officer since February 2009, to serve as the Company’s principal financial officer, with the title of Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, to be effective as of July 14, 2010.



Mr. Knapstad, age 48, has been, and will remain, our President and Chief Operating Officer since July 2, 2007. Prior to taking the role of President and Chief Operating Officer, Mr. Knapstad was the Company’s Acting President and Chief Executive Officer from March 2007 to July 2007, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer from December 2006 to March 2007 and Vice President, Operations (USA) from April 2005 to December 2006. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Knapstad was the Manager of Powder River Basin Assets for J. M. Huber Corporation, a privately held corporation with extensive unconventional resource holdings since May 2003. Prior to Huber, Mr. Knapstad worked for Marathon Oil Company from 1990 to 2005 as a senior engineer.



Mr. Naro, age 49, has served as our contract chief financial officer since February 2009. Prior to joining the Company, from April 2006 to January 2009, Mr. Naro was the Chief Financial Officer of Adam Aircraft Industries/AAI Acquisition, Inc., a privately held advanced composite aircraft design and manufacturing company that has raised over $300 million and has employed up to 800 workers. Prior to AAI Acquisition, Inc, Mr. Naro served as the Business Unit Chief Financial Officer of StorageTek/Sun MicroSystems from 2002 to 2006 where he was responsible for all of the finance aspects of the $1.6 billion Automated Tape Solutions Business Unit. Before StorageTek, Mr. Naro served in several senior finance executive positions for various companies.



Mr. Knapstad’s and Mr. Naro’s employment with the Company is, and will continue to be, at-will.



Except for the foregoing, there has been no transaction since December 31, 2008, or proposed transaction, to which the Company was or is to be a party in which Mr. Knapstad or Mr. Naro had a direct or indirect interest required to be disclosed under Item 404 of Regulation S-K. There are no family relationships between Mr. Knapstad, Mr. Naro and any other officer or director of the Company.



Election of Directors



On July 14, 2010, the Board elected Keith Knapstad and Christopher Naro as members of the Board, to be effective as of July 14, 2010.

sharkin, the ask was around .003-4, even when the pps around .0003 It just means someone bought at the ask even with the big spread (between bid and ask), thus the big price gain. It's somewhat interesting that someone bought but that's about it. SCUEF is still in bk.

What's with this major increase anyway? Anybody out there know. There was hardly any trades.

scuef up 800% and this board is dead. Where is everybody?

SEDAR Company Profile
http://www.sedar.com/DisplayProfile.do?lang=EN&issuerType=03&issuerNo=00016305

chart, just for kicks

schedule 13D filed today Trapeze/Abramson
check: www.otcbb.com


"Schedule 13D is an SEC filing that must be submitted to the US Securities and Exchange Commission within 10 days, by anyone who acquires beneficial ownership of 5% or more of any class of publicly-traded securities in a public company. A filer must promptly update its Schedule 13D filing to reflect any material change in the facts disclosed, including, among other things, the acquisition or disposition of 1% of the securities that are the subject of the filing."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schedule_13d

interesting that nearly all trades here go through the bid but the bid remains solid. fwiw

Pickens: Bill pushing natural-gas vehicles will pass by late May
The Denver Post
Posted: 01/22/2010 01:00:00 AM MST


T. Boone Pickens, founder and chairman of BP Capital LLC, speaks during an interview in New York, U.S., on Thursday, Jan. 21, 2010. Pickens said a U.S. bill with new incentives for natural gas vehicles will pass by late May. Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg *** Local Caption *** T. Boone Pickens (Bloomberg | Daniel Acker)T. Boone Pickens, founder and chairman of Dallas-based BP Capital, said a U.S. bill with new incentives for natural-gas vehicles will pass by late May.

"We've got a bill that's set to go," Pickens told Bloomberg Television. "It will pass by Memorial Day."

Pickens in 2008 started a $60 million promotion for a national energy plan that relies on domestically produced natural gas and wind energy to cut U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Now he's focused on replacing fleet cars and trucks that run on gasoline with those that use cleaner-burning natural gas.

The legislation, which doubles 2005 tax incentives for buying vehicles fueled by natural gas, was offered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada in July. The measure has enough support to advance through Congress, Pickens said Thursday. The Associated Press



Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_14242897#ixzz0dNuRJwUe
http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_14242897

rsi above 50

http://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/articles/2010/01/05/news/today/news02.txt

http://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/articles/2010/01/05/news/today/news01.txt

Total to Buy Chesapeake Shale Stake for $2.25 Billion (Update4)
January 04, 2010, 04:16 PM EST

MORE FROM BUSINESSWEEK


By Tara Patel and Jim Polson

Jan. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Total SA, Europe’s third-largest oil company, accelerated its expansion in unconventional energy by agreeing to buy a stake in Chesapeake Energy Corp.’s assets in the biggest U.S. natural-gas field for as much as $2.25 billion.

Total will pay $800 million for the 25 percent stake and as much as $1.45 billion over as long as six years by funding 60 percent of Chesapeake’s costs in the Barnett Shale formation of North Texas, the companies said today in separate statements. The Barnett field produces about half of all shale gas in the U.S., according to Oklahoma City-based Chesapeake.

Shale-gas deposits are a priority for Paris-based Total as it moves to fill a development gap, Chief Executive Officer Christophe de Margerie said last month in Beijing. Total’s bet follows Exxon Mobil Corp., the biggest U.S. oil company, which agreed last month to buy shale-gas producer XTO Energy Inc. for $29.2 billion. Total has so-called unconventional gas projects in South America, Africa and China.

“This is clearly in line with Total’s strategy to get into U.S. shale gas,” said Aymeric de Villaret, an analyst at Societe Generale in Paris. “The price looks reasonable.”

Total rose 1.8 percent to 45.795 euros in Paris. Chesapeake jumped $2.21, or 8.5 percent, to $28.09 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading.



Barnett Shale



The Barnett Shale is the most productive U.S. gas field and accounted for 52 percent of Chesapeake’s third-quarter output. It was the first geological formation where improved technology enabled producers to bore sideways through thousands of feet of rock and fracture it with a mixture of water, sand and chemicals to make gas flow.

Shale-gas successes prompted the Potential Gas Committee, a group of industry, academic and government volunteers, to boost its estimate of U.S. gas reserves by 39 percent last year.

Chesapeake said assets going into the joint venture with Total include about 270,000 net acres of leaseholds in the Barnett, 700 million cubic feet of daily gas output and reserves equivalent to 3 trillion cubic feet of gas. Total estimated the expanse at about 300,000 net acres.

Chesapeake sold a $1.25 billion stake in its holdings in another U.S. shale-gas development, the Marcellus, to Norway’s Statoil ASA in 2008. The company, which sought partners to help fund its shale-gas projects, cut its estimate for 2010 drilling costs to $4 billion to $4.3 billion from a previous forecast of $4.4 billion to $4.7 billion.



Cash to Drill



“This pretty much eliminates the cash-flow deficit investors were looking at in 2010 from Chesapeake’s drilling plan and starts taking care of 2011,” said Scott Hanold, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets in Austin, Texas, who rates the company’s shares at “outperform” and owns none. “For a 25 percent working interest, it’s a good deal for Chesapeake.”

The deal with Total brings Chesapeake’s proceeds from shale-gas ventures in the past 18 months to $10.8 billion, Chief Executive Officer Aubrey McClendon said in the statement.

Chesapeake said it’s in talks with Total for a joint venture in the Eagle Ford Shale in southern Texas and “several” Canadian shale developments. Major oil companies are increasingly investing in independent producers that can advance their know-how in tapping shale-gas deposits.

“It will allow Total to develop its expertise in unconventional hydrocarbons” to expand in such developments worldwide, de Margerie said in Total’s statement.



Profit Outlook



Chesapeake’s per-share profit in 2010, excluding gains or losses on hedging contracts, will be $1.90 to $3.18 a share, depending on the price of gas, the company said today in slides for a presentation to investors. The company was expected to earn $2.43 a share, the average of 32 analysts estimates compiled by Bloomberg.

BP Plc paid Chesapeake $1.9 billion for 25 percent of its Fayetteville Shale holdings after buying its Woodford Shale assets in Oklahoma for $1.75 billion. Plains Exploration & Production Co., based in Houston, has a joint venture with Chesapeake for development of the Haynesville Shale formation of east Texas and west Louisiana.

The Marcellus and Haynesville Shale plays are likely to become the largest gas fields in the U.S., according to Chesapeake.

Royal Dutch Shell Plc of The Hague and London-based BP are Europe’s biggest oil companies, ranking ahead of Total.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-04/total-to-buy-chesapeake-shale-stake-for-2-25-billion-update4-.html

Storm Cat Sedar documents:

http://www.sedar.com/DisplayCompanyDocuments.do?lang=EN&issuerNo=00003909

Cheap Natural Gas and Its Enemies
By Ed Lasky
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/cheap_natural_gas_and_its_enem.html

A vast reservoir of clean-burning natural gas could be available at reasonable cost in the coming years, freeing us from some of our dependence on imported energy. Yet there are those who consider such a development a threat.


A small group of billionaires (and mere multimillionaires), formed under the aegis of the Democracy Alliance, has amassed a great deal of political influence in America on behalf of the Democratic Party and Democratic politicians. Among the more important members of this "club" are George Soros and his liberal allies, Herbert and Marion Sandler. The latter two are billionaire beneficiaries of the mortgage bubble who timed their exit from the savings and loan industry before the bubble popped. They went on to fund (with George Soros) the Center for American Progress -- otherwise known as Obama's "idea factory."


One other venture that the Sandlers started is a media group called Pro Publica -- an outfit supposed to "engage in investigative journalism" and provide its findings to larger media outlets for greater impact. These "exposés" are provided at no cost to newspapers (and others), who, in an era of cutbacks, are happy to have good copy written by respected journalists. Free material is a no-brainer.


But why would the politically active Sandlers suddenly enter the media world? Perhaps it's because they realize the political and financial benefits that can flow from influencing the news. We may be seeing a sample of this type of handiwork now.


Among the first "exposés" Pro Publica undertook was an attack on energy companies for developing the Marcellus Shale, a vast natural gas reservoir stretching across several states. The "exposé" focused on putative environmental effects that might result from tapping these reserves. The technology used to unleash this natural gas from the shale in which it is trapped is called "fracking." Energy companies inject water, sand, and drilling fluids into the rock to "crack" it and release the natural gas. The potential for this technology is huge: America is a vast storehouse of this type of gas. Much of this is located not just in the Marcellus formation, but throughout the Rocky Mountain states. Also, the Barnett Shale region of Texas and the Bakken Shale region of North Dakota are rich with this type of natural gas.


Fracking is a proven technology. Energy experts are now predicting this technology will help free us from dependency on foreign sources of natural gas. The quantity is so vast that there is even potential for substituting natural gas for petroleum in cars and trucks. Natural gas is a clean-burning fuel that can replace coal in electric power plants. Already, the impact of this technology is beneficial. The prospect of this huge resource being tapped for years to come has brought down the price of natural gas, both in the spot market (where it is priced now) and in the futures market (where it is priced for future delivery). Indeed, the price has come down so much that the publicly held exploration and production companies that focus on natural gas have seen their share prices weaken.


Exxon Mobil was so entranced with the prospects of this technology that it has offered $31 billion dollars for XTO Energy, an energy company that has vast reserves of shale gas that can be tapped at a relatively small cost through fracking.


But there is one potential snag in the deal: Exxon can walk away if laws are passed that restrict the use of fracking. These laws would be a response to claims that fracking can harm the environment. Already, Representative Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts), Chairman of the House Energy and Environmental Subcommittee (of the Energy and Commerce Committee -- the Russian-doll nature of Congressional committees and subcommittees can be mind-boggling) has called hearings into the Exxon-XTO deal. He will focus on the environmental concerns related to air pollution and water contamination (fracking uses water).


Now how coincidental is it that the Sandler-funded Pro Publica focuses on "fracking" as their inaugural topic? The Sandlers have no apparent experience in or knowledge of the energy industry. Why not have Pro Publica focus on other investigative topics -- say, the savings and loan crisis and the malefactors of great wealth who made out like the proverbial bandits? We know the answer to that question, but maybe we have an inkling of why Pro Publica has been pushing the "fracking" story, and why Democrats in Congress are going along with the media/political campaign.


George Soros is a pal and ally of the Sandlers. He also owns major stakes in energy companies that don't rely on shale gas for their revenue. These companies would be harmed and become less profitable if shale gas were released onto the market in the vast quantities industry experts believe are available through fracking. He also owns a major interest in InterOil, an energy company that has discovered a vast natural gas find in Papua New Guinea. The potential of that find is enormous and could lead to a very profitable export of liquefied natural gas to the American market.


However, the potential value of InterOil and Soros's other investments would suffer if the vast reserves of shale natural gas that lie below much of America are tapped. Furthermore, Soros operates through a hedge fund domiciled overseas. We cannot know who his investors are. They are rumored to include some of the world's petrocrats, who also have a vested interest in ensuring that America's own energy resources remain undeveloped so that we can send our billions to them...but of course, only Soros insiders know.


Did Soros foresee the problem that shale natural gas might pose? He is a legendary investor who sees risks and reward years before anyone else. That is how he made his billions. Did he ask the Sandlers to have Pro Publica focus on fracking? Is he now using his vast influence with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party (symbolized by Congressman Markey, also a pal of one of those petrocats, Hugo Chavez) to derail the potential of fracking? Will Soros use his influence with Barack Obama to command the Environmental Protection Agency to focus on the environmental consequences of fracking? Is he behind efforts by Senator Feingold (D-WI) to give the EPA more power over water resources throughout America?


Of course, this is all conjecture. After all, George Soros and company are not the type of people who leave e-mails on servers or fingerprints on their plans.


Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker.
30 Comments on "Cheap Natural Gas and Its Enemies"

did you see that article on the sandlers and soros etc possibly making a case against frac'ing? I'll try to post it.

of course where the gov is concerned the bet will be to shoot us in the foot, jmo.

Keep an eye on the gov's position on "frac'ing". If the gov makes it so that "frac'ing" is not possible, coal bed methane gas will not be as viable as previous.

Exxon is buying on XTO with a string attached that they will only do so as long as the gov does not ban "frac'ing".