serafin's Profile
serafin's Posts
I confirmed with Nick Hurst of I.R. at Petromanas that Mr. Schaefer was not
compensated for his newsletter article on Petromanas.
He contacted the company and asked to interview the CEO .
I mentioned this stock back in December when it was trading at $.12 and today it closed at
$.18 with over 7 1/2 million shares trading.
The author of the article spoke to the CEO and issued his personal thoughts on what the
potential is for Petromanas in his newsletter.
It is a risky investment with huge potential because if Molisht 1 hits as well it has the
potential of an oil field with 500-800 million barrels. That well should hit t/d in May if
everything goes to plan.
Appraisal plans and new independant resource estimate as required by TSX probably in
second quarter.
If anybody bought the day i mentioned it they would be up 50% today.
As far as i know this was an independant report because i saw no disclaimer that he was
paid by Petromanas but I have an inquiry into I.R. to confirm.
As far as outting people is concerned I will leave that to others as it does not concern me.
For the record I hold 459,550 shares of pmi. DYDD.
If this continues on a clearly clarified subject matter, or a moot point like this one for that matter, it will be grounds for moderator intervention.
If I can't freely express my opinions as a shareholder without being threatened then it is time to leave .
I have always stated that if my criticisms of management's performance to date were proven wrong and Elmer pulled this off I would be the first to offer an apology.
I see no short term chance of that happening and I have no intention of sitting on dead money for another four or five years.
I leave this forum with regret but it is my only option as I do not want to be looking over my shoulder every time I post.
Good-bye and good luck.
Teck walked, you really think we wouldn't be at 33 cents? Please go look at Catalyst Copper
If you are comparing us to Catalyst Copper either pre Salazar or after then we're really in
trouble.
The problem is that the old agreement didn't make sense in spending $360M on exploration
Under Salazar the 4 times expenditures was for exploration and development not just
exploration.
That being said, the best part of the agreement is Teck willing to arrange financing for CUU
The last thing we need is no buyers lined up and having to finance our share if and when a production decision is made.
Elmer mentioned to me many times he dropped of the FS
Dropping off the feasibility study is not the same as serving them the feasibility notice
to invoke the 60 and 120 day provisions of the old Salazar
Even so, Teck back in now, it doesn't matter if it was served or not anymore
I agree.
No need to explain it to me again. You and I will never agree on that point but at least we can state our views which was impossible some time ago
I would say that this forum has matured in that respect and kudos for allowing some spirited debate.
I would point out that the agreement was written by Teck and would have been gone over
with a fine tooth comb by the legal departments of both parties before dotting the i's and
crossing the t's.
If contested I doubt that Teck would have had much of a leg to stand on.
You don't throw out legal binding agreements simply because they are old especially
after displaying them on your website and in which people did their due diligence
basing investment decisions on such.
I don't count my lucky stars for this new agreement but I do count the vastly diminished
value of my cuu shares every time i log in every day.
Only the fullness of time will determine if we realize the value we once thought was a no
brainer.
I have been a seller a few months back at $.55 and $.34 last week.
I have 34,350 shares left out of about 77,000 I once held.
Once I divulge myself of those and I have no time table as I am prepared to wait a few
more months, I will file this under bone head investments and move on.