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 : NAMX -- North American Expl.-- Que Sera Sera! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (3101)	3/29/1998 12:54:00 PM
From: M. M. Jones	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4736

My understanding of the reporting question is that NAMX has to report if it has $10 million or more in assets and 500 or more shareholders. It must report if both conditions are true, but it does not have to report if only one of these conditions obtain. (See below.) ----------- Reporting obligations because of Securities Act registration Once the staff declares your company's Securities Act registration statement effective, the Exchange Act requires you to file reports with the SEC. The obligation to file reports continues at least through the end of the fiscal year in which your registration statement becomes effective. After that, you are required to continue reporting unless you satisfy the following "thresholds," in which case your filing obligations are suspended: your company has fewer than 300 shareholders of the class of securities offered; or your company has fewer than 500 shareholders of the class of securities offered and less than $10 million in total assets for each of its last three fiscal years. ------------------ I have questions about NAMX's "proven and probable" reserves. I want to have an independent confirmation of the size of the "probable" reserves, which, as the press release said, may be adjusted up or down. In any event, if the proven reserves are under $10,000,000 and they constitute its reportable assets, NAMX will not have to report, according to the way I read the regs. "Probable" doesn't affect SEC requirements. M.M.

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (3101)	3/29/1998 1:56:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4736

Bob, you stated: " 50.5 bcf gas reserves x $2/thou cf = $101,000,000 cash value of reserves , $101,000,000 ö 100,000,000 shares issued = $1.01 per share gross asset value based on the reserves discovered so far. " And this is actually pretty interesting view, the valuation of the company according to these numbers (assuming these are the only assets on one side and that the number of shares is only 100,000,000) is about $.1 to $.2/share. To refine this better, we need to know what percentage of the gas accrue to NAMX, I doubt it is 100% since someone is leasing these properties to them and would want a piece of the action (50% is not unusual, Arakis had to let go of 75% in a similar case). Furthermore, you need to discount the future value of these assets to today using a fair discount rate over at least 10 years, resulting in a present value of about 30% of the total current "face value". So, if your data are correct, then the fair value of the company could be in the range of $.15 to $.30 per share. We come back to some very simple vauation questions, how many shares are outstanding, what percentage of the gas recovered belongs to NAMX, how long it will take to recover that gas (and then use an alternative valuation of 5 to 7 times expected cash flow per share). It might also be helpful to use the current energy costs, I have not followed natural gas, is it still at $2/1000 cuft? Last, in estimating gas reserves, one need to be careful with what is reported, typically there are "Proven", "Probable" and "Potential" reserves. I know not to which category the 50 Bcf belong, but if some of it is "probable, you take only 50% in valuation, and the "potentia;" should really not be taken at more than 10% in valuation. Last thing, to assume that the stock is currently selling at what it is being due to attacks on this and other threads is ridiculous. I have not "attacked" this stock since the last rally to $.2 <VBG>. Furthermore, other have been singing the glories of this stock on this thread for the last year and this glorification did not prevent the stock falling apart. We hear that all the time, the attacks on the stock caused RMIL to fall apart, the attacks on EXSO have caused it to fall apart and everytime a rational analysis of a stock is presented directed at valuation of the same stock (just today I was asked again on my agenda on the TTRIF thread, another stock I thought was being hyped for the benefits of few since it was well overpriced aboe 3 last year). Good luck to you. Zeev

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (3101)	3/30/1998 11:21:00 AM
From: Hunter Vann	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4736

Hunter Vann has said his intentions are to keep investor's from buying this stock Once again, you're flat out lying. I never once said this. I stated that my only reason for being here was to state both sides of the story and let people know that the rosy picture you try and paint might not be so. You've maligned and attacked everyone on this thread that has said something negative about Ebeling or NAMX. I'm sick of your hype! He promotes fear and confusion every time the stock price starts to rise. Horse shit! I post when it's up...I post when it's down..I post when it's not doing a damn thing. I really don't think people are buying your ignorant conspiracy theory on the reason for the stock declining. Hunter and another poster he is associated with from the TEIM thread used this same tactic to try to shut up other bullish posters on the TEIM thread. You're pathetic! There were numerous innocent and gullible people on the TEIM thread that simply tried to find out the facts related to TEIM and its so-called movie deals. When we uncovered these facts it was a little too late for us. We found out that NOTHING Ebeling told us by phone and by press releases materialized. Subsequently, the stock collapsed 90%. The same thing that appears to be going on here. Is this a coincidence? YOu tell me smart man. His attacks against me and Marty Linskey (who left the thread) is all about trying to silence the bullish investor's. It's about trying to find the truth and YOU know it! The truth is something that YOU don't like to hear. Then Zeev comes back to dazzle us with his brilliance! What an argument he makes. Dah, the price is down, something must be wrong! This within itself shows your complete ignorance..