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 |
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
-------------------- Bulls make money, bears make money, but pigs just get slaughtered!" Posts: 28 | From: Montréal | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
** 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 |
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 |
posted
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?
posted
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 ]
posted
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 |
"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.
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.
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 |
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?
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?
posted
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 |
posted
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 |
"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.
posted
"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...
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 |
posted
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
Posts: 38 | From: FLORIDA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
has purl stopped far*&^* yet??? give market a chance to decide on the current value of NDOL purl
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |