Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Hot Stocks Free for All ! » NDOL : 300% revenue increase, calling *0.47 (Page 9)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 95 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  93  94  95   
Author Topic: NDOL : 300% revenue increase, calling *0.47
SYGY
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for SYGY     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.osw.waw.pl/en/epub/ekoment/2006/01/060119.htm#top
Posts: 1307 | From: Calgary AB Canada | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mgd723
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for mgd723     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
New news on there oil reserves


NDOL -- Nord Oil International, Inc.
Com ($0.001)

COMPANY NEWS AND PRESS RELEASES FROM OTHER SOURCES:
Nord Oil / North-West Oil Group Provides Details on Its Oil Reserves

Oil Category C1: 5,000,000 tons (36,750,000 barrels); Oil Category C3: 1,920,000 tons (14,112,000 barrels); Oil Category D1: 21,400,000 tons (157,290,000 barrels) Total Proven and Probable Reserves: 28,320,000 tons (208,152,000 barrels)

MONTREAL, May 30, 2006 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- Nord Oil / North-West Oil Group (PINKSHEETS: NDOL) today provided details on its proven and probable reserves, which amount to 208,152,000 barrels.

The North-West Oil Group currently has 4 licenses for oil production in the Saratov region, including Severo-Vasnevetskoe, Stepnovskoe, Kalininskoe and Goruchenskoe. The current volume of production is approximately 2,450 barrels per day or 894,250 barrels per year.

The North-West Oil Group was also granted 2 development licenses. The fist is for the Shalinsky property, which spans 546.8 square kilometers and has reserves of 5,000,000 tons of oil (36,750,000 barrels) of category C1. The second license, named Surgutsky includes 7 properties located, which spans an area of 329.4 square kilometer in the Hanty-Mansysisk and Nefteyugansk regions. These properties are evaluated to hold 1,920,000 tons of category C3 and 21,400,000 tons of category D1 representing 171,402,000 barrels.

About Nord Oil International Inc.

Nord Oil International Inc. is a reporting, publicly traded Oil & Gas company trading under the ticker symbol NDOL on the US Pinksheets market as well as on the Frankfurt Exchange under symbol CXIA. Nord Oil International and the North-West Oil Group merged on May 11, 2006. The company is in the process of filing all regulatory statements and will change its name to the North-West Oil Group and will be issued a new ticker symbol. The company presently produces over 120,000 Metric Tons of crude oil yearly.

Important Information About Forward-Looking Statements

All statements in this news release that are other than statements of historical facts are forward-looking statements, which contain our current expectations about our future results. Forward-looking statements involve numerous risks and uncertainties. We have attempted to identify any forward-looking statements by using words such as "anticipates," "believes," "could," "expects," "intends," "may," "should" and other similar expressions. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in all of our forward-looking statements are reasonable, we can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct.

A number of factors may affect our future results and may cause those results to differ materially from those indicated in any forward-looking statements made by us or on our behalf. Such factors include our limited operating history; our need for significant capital to finance internal growth as well as strategic acquisitions; our ability to attract and retain key employees and strategic partners; our ability to achieve and maintain profitability; fluctuations in the trading price and volume of our stock; competition from other providers of similar products and services; and other unanticipated future events and conditions.

Posts: 36 | From: Charleston,SC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
chewy
Member


Rate Member
Icon 14 posted      Profile for chewy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mgd723:
New news on there oil reserves


NDOL -- Nord Oil International, Inc.
Com ($0.001)

COMPANY NEWS AND PRESS RELEASES FROM OTHER SOURCES:
Nord Oil / North-West Oil Group Provides Details on Its Oil Reserves

Oil Category C1: 5,000,000 tons (36,750,000 barrels); Oil Category C3: 1,920,000 tons (14,112,000 barrels); Oil Category D1: 21,400,000 tons (157,290,000 barrels) Total Proven and Probable Reserves: 28,320,000 tons (208,152,000 barrels)

MONTREAL, May 30, 2006 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- Nord Oil / North-West Oil Group (PINKSHEETS: NDOL) today provided details on its proven and probable reserves, which amount to 208,152,000 barrels.

The North-West Oil Group currently has 4 licenses for oil production in the Saratov region, including Severo-Vasnevetskoe, Stepnovskoe, Kalininskoe and Goruchenskoe. The current volume of production is approximately 2,450 barrels per day or 894,250 barrels per year.

The North-West Oil Group was also granted 2 development licenses. The fist is for the Shalinsky property, which spans 546.8 square kilometers and has reserves of 5,000,000 tons of oil (36,750,000 barrels) of category C1. The second license, named Surgutsky includes 7 properties located, which spans an area of 329.4 square kilometer in the Hanty-Mansysisk and Nefteyugansk regions. These properties are evaluated to hold 1,920,000 tons of category C3 and 21,400,000 tons of category D1 representing 171,402,000 barrels.

About Nord Oil International Inc.

Nord Oil International Inc. is a reporting, publicly traded Oil & Gas company trading under the ticker symbol NDOL on the US Pinksheets market as well as on the Frankfurt Exchange under symbol CXIA. Nord Oil International and the North-West Oil Group merged on May 11, 2006. The company is in the process of filing all regulatory statements and will change its name to the North-West Oil Group and will be issued a new ticker symbol. The company presently produces over 120,000 Metric Tons of crude oil yearly.

Important Information About Forward-Looking Statements

All statements in this news release that are other than statements of historical facts are forward-looking statements, which contain our current expectations about our future results. Forward-looking statements involve numerous risks and uncertainties. We have attempted to identify any forward-looking statements by using words such as "anticipates," "believes," "could," "expects," "intends," "may," "should" and other similar expressions. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in all of our forward-looking statements are reasonable, we can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct.

A number of factors may affect our future results and may cause those results to differ materially from those indicated in any forward-looking statements made by us or on our behalf. Such factors include our limited operating history; our need for significant capital to finance internal growth as well as strategic acquisitions; our ability to attract and retain key employees and strategic partners; our ability to achieve and maintain profitability; fluctuations in the trading price and volume of our stock; competition from other providers of similar products and services; and other unanticipated future events and conditions.

Alright, we might see green today [Wink]

--------------------
Bulls make money, bears make money, but pigs just get slaughtered!"

Posts: 28 | From: Montréal | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Purl Gurl
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Purl Gurl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Probable Reserves"

Danger Will Robinson!

Interesting number crunching,

"Intangible Assets (Reserves/ Options/ Licenses) 99,402,604"

Proven reserves:

36,750,000
+ 171,402,000
__________
208,152,000 barrels

Value at $65.00 per barrel:

208,152,000
X 65.00
___________
$13,529,880,000

**
Prior news claims 99 million in "reserves" and
current news, at $65.00 per barrel, claims
over 13 billion in reserves.


Purl Gurl

Posts: 7504 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
chewy
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for chewy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Purl Gurl:
"Probable Reserves"

Danger Will Robinson!

Interesting number crunching,

"Intangible Assets (Reserves/ Options/ Licenses) 99,402,604"

Proven reserves:

36,750,000
+ 171,402,000
__________
208,152,000 barrels

Value at $65.00 per barrel:

208,152,000
X 65.00
___________
$13,529,880,000

**
Prior news claims 99 million in "reserves" and
current news, at $65.00 per barrel, claims
over 13 billion in reserves.


Purl Gurl

Yeah, this is why it's says probable reserve.

First they release a new about they're estimate reserve which was about 10+ billion. After they release a new on the current reserves which was about 99 millions. Which make sense to me since this is what stock holder asked for.

Now they reestimate the probable stock they have and its 16 billions. What is wrong with that? and where is the number crash.. no were... thanks.

Now im happy with these number, and stock holder should be.

--------------------
Bulls make money, bears make money, but pigs just get slaughtered!"

Posts: 28 | From: Montréal | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
chewy
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for chewy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Purl Gurl:
"Probable Reserves"

Danger Will Robinson!

Interesting number crunching,

"Intangible Assets (Reserves/ Options/ Licenses) 99,402,604"

Proven reserves:

36,750,000
+ 171,402,000
__________
208,152,000 barrels

Value at $65.00 per barrel:

208,152,000
X 65.00
___________
$13,529,880,000

**
Prior news claims 99 million in "reserves" and
current news, at $65.00 per barrel, claims
over 13 billion in reserves.


Purl Gurl

Ok.. now it is obvious that you have some bad interest in that... Why would you trick the news release to your own interest if it isn't?

Or maybe you can tell use where does it says proven like you use :

Proven reserves:

36,750,000
+ 171,402,000
__________
208,152,000 barrels

Let's look at the new and take 2 quotes from it :

1- Total Proven and Probable Reserves: 28,320,000 tons (208,152,000 barrels)

2- today provided details on its proven and probable reserves, which amount to 208,152,000 barrels.

Now what you did was word manipulation k thanks.

--------------------
Bulls make money, bears make money, but pigs just get slaughtered!"

Posts: 28 | From: Montréal | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ccvle
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for ccvle         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Meeting is held now--we will surely go up a notch and preferably 2.

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Chun Ho [mailto:chun.ho*students.baruch.cuny.edu]
Envoyé : 30 mai, 2006 09:38
À : Gérald T. Parkin
Objet : How did the meeting to Amex or BB go?

How was the meeting to decide which exchange to go to? Have you
guys decided which exchange to go to? If not do you know which one
you will most likely go to?

Thanks,
NDOL investor

Posts: 119 | From: home | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Igor R
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Igor R     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When are they going to release the news of going to a higher exchange?
Posts: 854 | From: Alpharetta, GA | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JL
Member


Rate Member
Icon 14 posted      Profile for JL         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Added 25k .60
Posts: 604 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fatcat
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for fatcat     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The bashers on Allstocks and on IH are both making a lot of hooey regarding the statement of Intangible Assets as $99M and suggesting that Intangible Assets is where to put your unexploited mineral valuation.

Unfortunately, nobody on either board has pointed out what Intangible Assets are, so the bashers' incorrect assertion has made a lot of people scared. Not surprising, since most people who trade stocks aren't accountants. Neither am I, but I can search Google and read.


According to the IAS ( http://www.iasplus.com/standard/ias38.htm) intangible assets DO NOT include mineral assets but only to mineral RIGHTS (such as the amount paid for a lease):

code:
IAS 38 applies to all intangible assets 
other than:

[IAS 38.2-3]
* financial assets
* mineral rights and exploration and development costs incurred by mining and oil and gas companies
* intangible assets arising from insurance contracts issued by insurance companies
* intangible assets covered by another IAS, such as intangibles held for sale, deferred tax
assets, lease assets, assets arising from employee benefits, and goodwill. Goodwill is covered by IFRS 3

Examples of intangible assets (again according to IAS):
code:
    * computer software
* patents
* copyrights
* motion picture films
* customer lists
* mortgage servicing rights
* licenses
* import quotas
* franchises
* customer and supplier relationships
* marketing rights

This PDF document [URL]http://www.iasplus.com/iasplus/0501ifrs6.pdf [/URL] explains:
code:
Once the technical feasibility and commercial viability of extracting a mineral resource becomes
demonstrable, any previously recognised exploration and evaluation asset falls outside the
scope of IFRS 6 and is reclassified in accordance with other relevant Standards.

Nord has done that, so Nord's oil in the ground is NOT going to be listed as an intangible asset. The PDF seems to say it is evaluated according to IAS 16 which covers valuation of Property, Plant and Equipment.

Hopefully the bashers will stop trying to create FUD by trying to make people believe the line item of Intangible Assets is Nord's valuation of its oil in the ground. It isn't.

[ May 30, 2006, 11:06: Message edited by: fatcat ]

--------------------
-- Fatcat

Posts: 8 | From: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Purl Gurl
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Purl Gurl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fatcat, the NDOL SEC filings clearly states,

"reserves"

You have exemplified NDOL has either mistakingly
listed reserves under intangibles or has falsified
this section.

Previously I question this listing per SEC
Section 142, which you deliberately do not
mention in your article.

I am curious why you deliberately do not mention
these contradictions in NDOL SEC filings and news.

You label us bashers for questioning filings
and news releases which is what prudent traders
will do and which fools, do not do.

Are you a paid pumper?


Purl Gurl

Posts: 7504 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Purl Gurl
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Purl Gurl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fatcat, a favor for readers. Do not post
bad html/ubb code. You cause text to exceed
the right margin and mess up subsequent posts.

Purl Gurl

Posts: 7504 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baxt06
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Baxt06         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am a CPA, and you would never mark up your asset account to show the market value of reserves. It's valued at lower of cost or market. If there is reason to write-down the asset, they would be obliged to do so, but never the other way around.
Posts: 1053 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fatcat
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for fatcat     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually Purl, I didn't mention you or anyone specifically as a basher. Are you volunteering for the label?

Which filing are you referring to? I don't think I've seen it, or if I did I missed the reference to "reserves."

Fixed the post BTW. Long lines in a "CODE" section don't wrap, and that messed it up.

--------------------
-- Fatcat

Posts: 8 | From: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Purl Gurl
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Purl Gurl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fatcat writes,

"Actually Purl, I didn't mention you or anyone
specifically as a basher. Are you volunteering
for the label?"

Yeah, so what? You are labeling others bashers
which grants others a right to label you a
paid pumper. Turn-about is fair play.

"Which filing are you referring to? I don't think
I've seen it, or if I did I missed the reference
to 'reserves.'"

I am curious why you are commenting on technical
details without being fully familiar with SEC
filings and news.

Additionally, I have previously cited references
and quotes for readers. Are you not reading?

Clearly, I am a bit more informed than you, yes?

I have problems with a company which consistently
releases inconsistent numbers, and especially
have problems with a company which appears to
not be following SEC guidelines, such as Section
142 previously discussed, by me.

Another, a CPA, has raised some questions about
how numbers should be reported. Rather obvious
NDOL is causing confusion, not clarity. None
know, clearly, what is true and what is not.

Today's trader reaction to news is a clear
indicator there are problems and mistrust,
both of which are well warranted.

You label traders who question, bashers?

pffttt...

Purl Gurl

Posts: 7504 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fatcat
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for fatcat     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baxt06:
I am a CPA, and you would never mark up your asset account to show the market value of reserves. It's valued at lower of cost or market. If there is reason to write-down the asset, they would be obliged to do so, but never the other way around.

By all means share your insight as you have actual knowledge where I am just a poor schmoe trying to make sense of things. Here's my understanding:

Nord's oil should be filed on a balance sheet with a valuation calculated as the sum of any leases they purchased plus the cost of any exploration, drilling and other development costs.

If Nord hasn't shown the extraction of their oil to be economically or technically feasible, then their oil would show up as an intangible asset with a valuation calculated as in the previous paragraph.

If it is technically and economically feasible, then it should show up as an tangible asset, with the same value calculation.

In no instance should the balance sheet show market value of an a non-produced mineral asset.

In either case, whether tangible or intangible, the market value of Nord's oil is not going to show up anywhere on Nord's balance sheet. Only a small fraction (hopefully) will show up that constitutes the money they have spent on exploration, drilling and development of the assets.

Is this right?

--------------------
-- Fatcat

Posts: 8 | From: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MickeyG
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for MickeyG         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fatcat don't bother with fatgurl she is a loser.
Posts: 249 | From: NY | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Purl Gurl
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Purl Gurl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fatcat writes,

"I am just a poor schmoe trying to make sense of things...."

Why are you labeling others "bashers" for also
trying to make sense of things?

You label others bashers, then make "factual"
statements, followed by a statement you are
trying to make sense of things.

Your statements are as inconsistent as NDOL statements.

Purl Gurl

Posts: 7504 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
chewy
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for chewy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Purl Gurl:
Fatcat writes,

"I am just a poor schmoe trying to make sense of things...."

Why are you labeling others "bashers" for also
trying to make sense of things?

You label others bashers, then make "factual"
statements, followed by a statement you are
trying to make sense of things.

Your statements are as inconsistent as NDOL statements.

Purl Gurl

Sorry Purl, but I don't think you have the right to call inconsistent statements to other. You have to be consistent first.

--------------------
Bulls make money, bears make money, but pigs just get slaughtered!"

Posts: 28 | From: Montréal | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fatcat
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for fatcat     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Purl Gurl:
Fatcat writes,

"Actually Purl, I didn't mention you or anyone
specifically as a basher. Are you volunteering
for the label?"

Yeah, so what? You are labeling others bashers
which grants others a right to label you a
paid pumper. Turn-about is fair play.

"Which filing are you referring to? I don't think
I've seen it, or if I did I missed the reference
to 'reserves.'"

I am curious why you are commenting on technical
details without being fully familiar with SEC
filings and news.

Additionally, I have previously cited references
and quotes for readers. Are you not reading?

Clearly, I am a bit more informed than you, yes?

I have problems with a company which consistently
releases inconsistent numbers, and especially
have problems with a company which appears to
not be following SEC guidelines, such as Section
142 previously discussed, by me.

Another, a CPA, has raised some questions about
how numbers should be reported. Rather obvious
NDOL is causing confusion, not clarity. None
know, clearly, what is true and what is not.

Today's trader reaction to news is a clear
indicator there are problems and mistrust,
both of which are well warranted.

You label traders who question, bashers?

pffttt...

Purl Gurl

No, I label people who deliberately quote things from reports and then spin them to their own ends. The bashers I am referring to (I haven't read this whole thread so I don't know if you are among them or not) took the $99M Intangible Asset number and said "That's not $1.2B, Nord lied to us, decieved us, and are scammers."

All I am trying to do is show that $99M might not be wrong at all, even if the oil assets are still listed as intangible (which I don't know if they are or not). The CPA even said that market value should not show up on a balance sheet, and the $1.2B figure is *market* value. Perhaps $99M is correct.

I am trying to reconcile the balance sheet they filed with some form of reality. I do not know yet where this is going to lead me.

Nord is causing confusion, no doubt. I am late to this particular party and still playing catch-up to figure out what is really up. Are they scammers? Dunno. At the very least they seem completely incapable of stating the condition of their company in unambiguous terms. As a potential investor, that makes me nervous.

It is clear some people are deliberately trying to mislead the uninformed. This does happen on these and other boards, a lot. I am trying to share my DD with others, particularly in an area that seems to have been mangled rather badly.

Oh, what was the date of the filing you were referring to? The one where they stated their reserves?

--------------------
-- Fatcat

Posts: 8 | From: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Purl Gurl
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Purl Gurl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For readers, in a nutshell,

NDOL claims a company worth 1.2 billion and
a share price of $2.17 per.

NDOL SEC filing shows a company worth less
than one-tenth of their 1.2 billion claim
and a true trader .55 per share value.

NDOL claims reserves close to 13 billion dollars.

What is up with that?


Purl Gurl

Posts: 7504 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Purl Gurl
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Purl Gurl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fat Cat writes,

"It is clear some people are deliberately trying
to mislead the uninformed."

Boy Howdy!

Purl Gurl

Posts: 7504 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fatcat
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for fatcat     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Purl Gurl:
For readers, in a nutshell,

NDOL claims a company worth 1.2 billion and
a share price of $2.17 per.

NDOL SEC filing shows a company worth less
than one-tenth of their 1.2 billion claim
and a true trader .55 per share value.

NDOL claims reserves close to 13 billion dollars.

What is up with that?


Purl Gurl

The balance sheet could be correct. As the IAS standards say, you can only show the value of mineral assets (tangible or intangible) as the sum of expenditures towards the exploitation of those mineral assets. You cannot, on a balance sheet, show the market value of those assets.

The company can give advice to its investors and to the marketplace as to the market value of its assets, which is what they did.

The company filed its accounting reports and released advice. Those two things are different and do not need to be consistent. They are designed to fulfill totally different objectives and meet different standards.

Accounting standards call for one way to value mineral assets, but investors want to know how much is it worth once its pumped out, so they can determine future revenues and therefore a stock price. This appears to be a common practice for companies engaged in the extraction of natural resources.

I don't know what the $13B value is...is that due to the merger?

--------------------
-- Fatcat

Posts: 8 | From: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amelia
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amelia     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Purl Gurl, what are the odds that NDOL's statements are a complete fabrication and this whole thing is a sham? I ask this after reading about the FBI shuting down a Russian stock scam operating out of Canada. The shares last traded around $9.00 and haven't traded since, probably never will.

I sold the last of my NDOL shares last week at 50 cents, too early it seems. I wish all shareholders the best of luck, and hope I am wrong in my concerns but something doesn't feel right about NDOL.

Posts: 10 | From: Virginia | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baxt06
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Baxt06         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fatcat - you sound like you've done your homework. Absolutely, the market value of their reserves will never show up on their balance sheet UNLESS it is lower than their cost. I believe if you look at an Exxon 10-k they show reserves in the footnotes or MD&A.

Once it's in the barrel, I imagine it's moved into "inventory" but I can't speak to exactly how that happens. My experiences are primarily within the financial services industry.

Posts: 1053 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Purl Gurl
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Purl Gurl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Amelia asks,

"Purl Gurl, what are the odds that NDOL's statements
are a complete fabrication and this whole thing is
a sham?"

We have to be careful on this. There is no evidence
NDOL is a complete sham. However, there is ample
evidence NDOL is pumping their stock like crazy
through exaggeration and number twisting; NDOL
is not playing it straight.

There is evidence which suggests NDOL is cooking
their books. Previously I discussed their GOODWILL
entry which is bogus.

NDOL list "reserves" under intangible assets,
but the actual value is unknown, they show
a total value for reserves plus other items.

Current outstanding shares versus new outstanding
shares, absolutely contradictory, especially in
light of a claim of no reverse split.

NDOL historical claims are not consistent with
presumed "factual" data released by NDOL; pr news
is not consistent with SEC filings.

Obviously, this variety of numbers released by
NDOL, those numbers are inconsistent; none of
those numbers add up.

A complete sham? I do not know, none know.
I qualify a "sham" as a company which provides
all false data or majority false data, this is,
a company perpetrating obvious financial crime.

I do not believe NDOL is perpretrating crime
but I do believe they are twisting their numbers
and news into "something" not real.

My personal opinion is NDOL is a pump and dump
scheme which borders on unlawful but has not
crossed that line.

What is annoying is had NDOL played all of this
straight, produced factual news and factual SEC
filings, NDOL would be a worthwhile buy and
share prices would probably be around $1.00
per share. There is potential in this but
NDOL / North West elected to shoot itself
in the foot.

Sham, I do not think so. Pump and dump, yeah.

My guess is it will take a year or two before
all of this pans out into a true picture.

Purl Gurl

Posts: 7504 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Purl Gurl
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Purl Gurl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I don't know what the $13B value is...is that due
to the merger?"

Gross value of claimed proven reserves and "probable"
reserves in NDOL news today.

Probable reserves should be severely discounted;
rarely do probable reserves become proven reserves.

However, proven versus probable is not the point.
NDOL is now claiming a value more than ten times
their previous 1.2 billion claim, which is more
than ten times their documented value. Each news
pumps NDOL value up and up and up....

...and share price is moving down and down and down...


Purl Gurl

Posts: 7504 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theExposed
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for theExposed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MickeyG,

have you noticed Purl Gurl always places one of the longest threads after a valid point is made
by baxt06 and fatcat!

I wonder why? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM? boy it sure takes time to scroll back up. can you repeat what you said Baxt06?

Posts: 38 | From: FLORIDA | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Purl Gurl
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Purl Gurl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"always" I think not.

I think you are trying to discredit honest
and candid writers in an effort to pump
this stock.

Purl Gurl

Posts: 7504 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theExposed
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for theExposed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not trying to do anything really, just review what's posted and make my own decision, due diligence etc. Most of the time whatever you seem to post, I chose the opposite direction and wind up better in the long run. thanks anyway

Long and Strong on NDOL. GLTA including Purl Gurl [Wink]

Posts: 38 | From: FLORIDA | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Purl Gurl
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Purl Gurl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Not trying to do anything really...."

Which well explains your attempt to
discredit my writings.

"Most of the time whatever you (Purl Gurl) seem to
post, I chose the opposite direction and wind up
better in the long run."

You are, again, attempting to discredit my
writings and attempting to pump this stock.

You have a credibility problem and a bullet
in your foot.

Purl Gurl

Posts: 7504 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bingo2005
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for bingo2005     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OT PURL GURL : )

Still in ALMI?
I am riding BKMP.PK on fightnetwork UK USA
Carrier news

But still love my ALMI : )

- long time no see

BINGO

Posts: 796 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Purl Gurl
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Purl Gurl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hi Bingo!

I have been reading your articles here and
elsewhere.

Yes, still holding and still buying ALMI,
most certainly! I am expecting ALMI to
show continued growth. A long term hold,
absolutely.

Anticipation is high. ALMI is not yet retailing
their clay, when they do....

Purl Gurl

Posts: 7504 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
daytrader1
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for daytrader1         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
has purl stopped far*&^* yet??? give market a chance to decide on the current value of NDOL purl [Razz]
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dustoff 1
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dustoff 1     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JL:
Added 25k .60

-------------------------------------------------
OUCH!

Ask .51
Bid .505
Last .505

Posts: 10729 | From: oregon | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 95 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  93  94  95   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share