Tomco Energy Share Discussion Threads

[stuart little] 25/2/2021 21:17

I'm glad you now agree that the issue that you created is no longer, or probably ever was, an issue. If most of you on here knew about John Potters movements back and forwards over the Atlantic you wouldn't question his work ethic.

[lopodop] 25/2/2021 21:05

Stuart agreed - far more important issues now and fwd. Let's hope Board are doing their very best with this biggest ever chance for Tomco.

[stuart little] 25/2/2021 20:38

I always find people who make themselves laugh out loud without saying anything funny a little odd. Just saying.

[goldry] 25/2/2021 20:34

Blimey, is there still some life in this. Gonna be interesting which whether this or HUR retain the title of worst investment.. lol

[stuart little] 25/2/2021 20:26

And come the 2021 AGM in months time, if we are still questioning a payoff from 2019 then things haven't gone well with the project! If by the AGM funding for the plant is secured they'll be much more important issues on the agenda.

[stuart little] 25/2/2021 20:22

That said, it's water under the bridge now. Onwards and upwards from here.

[stuart little] 25/2/2021 20:20

I believe he was shoved to make way for Mr West whom I believe some shareholders wanted in place. Whether Stephen west brought us closer to PQE is up for debate. I never met andrew, I believe he wasn't everyone's cup of tea, a large shareholder here told me he probably saved tomco from going bust when he took the reigns. Well that might be worth the £150k to us over the coming months.

[lopodop] 25/2/2021 19:49

As an aside, when it comes to the AGM, the payoff to Andrew Jones should be questioned given that money is so tight.
It seems he agreed to stay to ensure a smooth handover so a thank you of say £30k might have been appropriate. He apparently went off at his own violition to pursue other interests so why did the Directors decide to disburse £150k. But perhaps shareholders think this is a kind gesture and are pleased to support the Directors in this way and it creates a precedent for anyone deciding to leave to pursue other interests.

[shaunx] 25/2/2021 19:14

He must work for the Nomads

[vauch] 25/2/2021 19:09

://fs.ogm.utah.gov/FILES/MINERALS/PERMITS/047/M0470089/2021/Outgoing/01142021.pdf

[vauch] 25/2/2021 19:08

Finally found it

[vauch] 25/2/2021 19:07

CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
George Stapleton
Petroteq Energy
15315 West Magnolia Boulevard, Suite 120
Sherman Oaks, California 91403
Email with read receipt to [e-mail]
Subject: Division Directive to Provide Update to the Tentatively Approved Notice of
Intention, Petroteq Energy, TMM Asphalt Ridge Mine, M/047/0089, Uintah
County, Utah
Dear Mr. Stapleton:
On July 23, 2019, the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (Division) tentatively approved a
significant revision to the Notice of Intention to Commence Large Mining Operations (Notice)
for the TMM Asphalt Ridge Mine. The Division received no public comments during the 30-day
comment period. Petroteq was then required to post a reclamation surety of $3,527,000 in order
to receive final approval to expand mining operations. On November 11, 2019, the Division
received a letter from Petroteq proposing an “Incremental Reclamation Surety Schedule” where
bonding would, at least in part, be tied to mine production. The Division rejected this proposal
in a letter dated December 9, 2019, citing that the State of Utah did not have the authority to
approve the risk that would be taken on by bonding on an incremental basis.
In May 2020, the Division learned that Petroteq was required to vacate the property
because its lease was revoked, and at that time the permit fee had not been paid. The permit fee
has now been paid, and the Division understands the lease has been reinstated. The Division
continues to hold two surety bonds totaling $385,672.00 for 22 acres of disturbance but has not
issued final approval for the revision because it has not received the increased surety. For
operations to continue at this site, the Division needs to receive an updated Notice detailing
mining and processing facilities and operations.
Petroteq is hereby directed to provide the Division with an updated Notice by no
later than March 1, 2021. This Notice should address all requirements of the rules in R647-4.
This includes but is not limited to, company contact information, mineral processing methods
and facilities, waste handling and management, and the reclamation plan. Company contact
information, including names of the operator’s principals, must be consistent on the Notice, the
surety documents, and in records of the Utah Division of Corporations.

[lopodop] 25/2/2021 19:04

Apologies. What has changed in terms of substance?
Recent share buying may indicate hope / expectation. The issues raised previously still abound. This is not the way to run a PLC - share price movements have to be on based on evidence, not just on people's whims.
All shareholders want this company to succeed and there may be sound reason to anticipate this.
My concern is that sharelders investments are not properly protected by the Board's behaviour and the wobbly share price reflects this. Until investors are given uptodate evidence of progress, what is the point in speculating - who are the losers? But if the Board likes the shares dealt with in a gambling den and you enjoy it good luck! Remember the so called rise, could be a downer in a few hours.

[damac] 25/2/2021 18:16

Anyone else find it strange that Lopodop trashed Tomco for the last week or so, and the share price kept going lower. Now once the buying starts he/she is nowhere to be seen.

[rmart] 25/2/2021 17:17

Anyone know if Fishy is still in here? I havent seen him post for a while?

[rmart] 25/2/2021 16:58

I just wonder if this could lead to a JV with petroteq. I dont see the point in doing a 250b trial and then walking away. Use the $1.5m set aside for the lease to do a deal with Petroteq where they go 50/50 with Greenfield on the current plant, get it to 5000 bopd ad then stay 50/50 on all future plants. Petroteq have the land available to house at least 1 more plant.

Seems a no brainer for all involved, but maybe its more complex than that.

[vauch] 25/2/2021 16:53

I will have a look tonight but it was a $350000 deposit against land cleanup that had not been paid and an injunction was issued for the 2nd March to stop all activities if not paid.
Something on those lines

[rmart] 25/2/2021 16:43

Vauch, was it you who mentioned Petroteq have some payment to make? if so can you enlighten me?

[rmart] 25/2/2021 16:41

It was a toss up between here and Zephyr, Tom got the vote as news is due on the pre feed and surely on the 250b test?

Hopefully this time Tom will put something out to get the share price moving upwards.

[rmart] 25/2/2021 16:39

Anyway, I am back in, 1st time for ages. Not going to ramp (promise). I just hope I have my timing right.

[vauch] 25/2/2021 16:38

I did send him a private message saying the same but no reply

[rmart] 25/2/2021 16:38

i worry for him, he has completely dissapeared. Hope he is ok. Its all banter on here, nothin serious

[vauch] 25/2/2021 16:37

Don't tell ducky rmart you know what will happen

[rmart] 25/2/2021 16:31

lol, just bought another 2.4m near the end. might sell in the morning :-)