Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : OILEX (OLEX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ajay who wrote (2270)	1/5/1998 9:43:00 PM
From: Eric Maggard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4276

But the value of the company has not decreased, rather it has increased. What?? Is this some kind of new math? The value of the company measured by the market has gone down considerably. Also, has the value of the company. Read the opening and the write-up a while ago. The value of the company is in the reserves. How do we know how much is there? How do you know there might not be more shares issued? You are probably hoping that there will not be. I don't see where the reserves are being proved. Show me the oil and I might believe. Eric Note: They have been promising improving production for almost 1.5 years. Good luck

To: Ajay who wrote (2270)	1/5/1998 9:55:00 PM
From: CHRISTINE	Respond to of 4276

Hi Ajay, Good to have you back. Price has gone up.You called it right. Looks like those 500,000 shares that were traded for part of BIGFOOT are going to pay off big time. If it were not for the use of shares Oilex would not have added so much to it's growth and potential!!!! The fact that there is little debt should be a PLUS to the company and to us shareholders. ( IN MY OPINION ). Christine

To: Ajay who wrote (2270)	1/5/1998 10:00:00 PM
From: OFW	Respond to of 4276

"The debentures were done to finance the drilling." says Ajay. But, the 10QSB SEC filing by the company on November 21, 1997 might give reason to question that statement. I admit I am no accountant, but the following information from that filing raises questions in my mind. STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS (Unaudited) For The Nine Months Ended Sept 30, 1997 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: Net Loss $(1,360,852) Adjustment to Reconcile Net Loss to Net Cash Provided (used) by Operating Activities: Common Stock Cancelled for Services Not Performed ( 100,000) Common Stock Issued for Services 12,500 Depreciation, Depletion and Amortization 28,754 Changes in Certain Assets and Liabilities: Increase in Due from Related Parties ( 214,254) Increase in Prepaid Expenses 11,503 Increase in Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses 156,542 Increase in Amounts Due for Oil and Gas Properties 130,000 Increase in Due to Related Parties 738,389 Increase in other receivables ( 116,500) Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities ( 714,098) CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: Increase in Oil and Gas Properties ( 132,500) Purchase of Marketable Securities ( 200,000) Increase in Deferred Tax Liability --- Purchase of Furniture and Equipment ( 67,120) Net Cash Provide (Used) By Investing Activities ( 399,620) CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: Retirement of Treasury Stock ( 350) Cancellation of Preferred Stock --- Issuance of convertible notes 1,124,709 Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents 10,641 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS - BEGINNING OF PERIOD 14,630 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS - END OF PERIOD 25,271 Like I said, I'm not an accountant so have no ideas what these numbers really mean. If in fact the company received all that debenture money, it would appear that all of it was already out the door by September 30, 1997. After all, the total change in cash or cash equivalents on hand was a grand total of $10,641. And, I do find it very interesting that a total of $952,643 seems to be tied to "related parties". These must be the same "related parties" that keep coming up in other SEC filings in major financial and stock transactions with Oilex. These must be the same "related parties" that Omar, Baron and the Management of Oilex refused to identify during my questions on their identities in earlier posts. Maybe the company could clear all of this up with an explanation in plain language that all of us non-professional investors can understand. Offie

To: Ajay who wrote (2270)	1/5/1998 10:52:00 PM
From: Larry Sallee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4276

Well said Ajay- I too wish they didn't have to go this hard way to get the cash to develop the fields but cash to drill is hard to come by. Remember we have 4 wells- one at least is producing at 96 bbls a day and has been for a while. As the others come on it will really make a difference. Above all this however is the fact that NEW OIL was discovered-this is proving out Big Foot with each new well. Paul Harvey was on the Radio today talking about the new oil rush in old fields and the development of a new/old national oil industry. My question is how many of these companies can you buy stock in that: already have proven new oil and brought in flowing wells under near virgin pressure, room to drill shallow wells in several fields, cash to drill ,have several hundred stripper wells, own HUGE royalty properties that are being developed by Majors like Exxon-Santos>>>> under a dollar??

To: Ajay who wrote (2270)	1/6/1998 11:36:00 AM
From: Prudent Investor	Respond to of 4276

"Do you agree that the BV is at least $9M (off the 10Q)?" I honestly do not know. It is not necessarily true because it is stated in the 10Q. There are so many different methods of valuing oil reserves that it could be a far lower number or right on. This is where management's credibility comes in. If you look back at all of the previous press releases issued and claims made by Oilex management regarding acquisitions and production, you will see that Oilex does not have a very credible track record. As an example, take the Geronimo Reserves deal. Oilex claimed it had purchased (note: purchase, not an option to purchase) Geronimo for $15,000,000. It claimed that Geronimo had 500,000,000 million barrels of oil and 4 « trillion cubic feet of gas in reserves. To my knowledge, Oilex has never issued a press release stating that the deal was dead. There have been opinions by posters to this thread that the deal is on "hold". Of course, the whole concept is ludicrous. If Geronimo really had those kinds of reserves, EXXON, CHEVRON, MOBIL, etc. would be willing to pay BILLIONS for it. Check back to the production levels that the company has been projecting since late 1995, and then compare what was actually produced. I believe that you will find that the actual production levels have been far less than what was projected. I do not mean less by a statistically small number, but less by an enormous amount. You could check with Eric Maggard on this point, as he is very knowledgeable on this matter. It appears to me that the cost to the company of raising $1,100,000 was an additional $550,000. It appears that all of the money was ultimately raised through the sale of common stock causing significant dilution of shareholder interest. Therein lies the relevancy of my questions. If the company has all of these recoverable reserves, why would it have to resort to such an expensive financing scheme? It seems to me that someone would be eager to lend money to Oilex on the basis of these assets (if the evaluation is accurate) at a far more advantageous rate. Therefore, one has to ask what is the reason for this type of finance? In addition, we have seen statements to the effect that Mr. Burditt has been putting millions of dollars of his own money into Oilex and that without his further contributions the company would not survive. If that is true, then why do the apparently expensive debenture financing? Moreover, if the new wells at Big Foot are so successful, then why not let production from the first pay for the second, and so forth? I find OFW's post regarding the financial statement quite relevant. If the $1,100,000 financing from the debenture was received by Oilex as indicated by the 10Q, then where did the cash go? We know that they were not drilling wells in Big Foot in September of 1997. The 10Q shows a cash balance of $25,271. Where is balance of the $1,100,000? If you do not see the relevance of these questions given the past credibility problems of the company, that is your choice. However, I believe that many others do see the need for the answers to questions of this nature. My guess is that we will see an increase in the authorized number of shares in the near future.