Member Info for Crownos

I think its safe to say everyone who invests would want things to be concrete with an airtight seal, myself included. I can't imagine anyone who would actively want more ambiguity or potential gains, we all want to be riding those gains on something with substance and active revenue generation.

I personally have relatively high confidence that Quadrise will get there, but its moreso a question of when, and its that when which seeds doubt as things drag on and on with delays becoming a consistent expectation in the minds of investors.

Whilst I can sometimes defend Quadrise on some aspects of their delays due to the fact they are the small player among those they are trying to strike deals with, but even I still roll my eyes and sigh at the lack lustre RNS's that simply provide further development down the road rather than the deals we need now to get revenues and commercialisation on the map.

For all my forgivings for Quadrise, they don't escape my own frustrations either, as I can feel things being so close and yet in some respects still far away too. Sometimes watching Quadrise can feel like having OCD and watching them consistently miss the mark, and I need to walk away for a while to dull the frustrations and rationalise the situation with a clear mind.

Not really strange at all, countless agreements are signed in the business realm which have a questionable probability of working out. One rule of business is that nothing is ever fully guaranteed and risk/doubt is ever present. In most respects, many businesses will enter into an agreement with each other simply on the mutual hope of better pastures only for things to fall flat, happens all the time.

My own personal feelings on Valkor/Tomco and their permits is that it is more than likely going to happen, I'd say its moreso a matter of when, as Valkor have the resources and money to seek drilling elsewhere or seek the right papers to allow them to drill with or without Tomco, it is simply more ideal for Valkor if Tomco can survive it all given they have a 25% stake in Tomco which is contingent on if a funding package can be obtained for the Greenfield project. But I certainly wouldn't say this is essential for Valkor, just more convenient with higher benefits.

Being invested in Tomco myself, the question for me is, during this whole debacle around Hoodoo and drilling rights, does Tomco have the ability to wait it out and survive this process, as their finances right now are looking pretty grim with dilution coming out of their ears and talks about selling off most of Greenfield for a measly stake in the profits. Also, no doubt the potential funders of Tomco's Greenfield project are becoming less and less confident as time moves on and delays keep pilling up without a resolution in sight.

As I say, Valkor have the resources and money to make it work if they want it to, and could be more of a timescale issue than one of if they have the rights to drill as I am sure they could obtain them somehow, but Tomco on the other hand are on some very shakey ground, and if these issues carry on for too long it could cause them to fall flat on their face with my hope of breaking even being a distant dream lol.

AC oil LLC is a is a subsidiary of Greenfield LLC which in itself is a 100% owned subsidiary of Tomco, therefore by extension it is owned in part of all by Tomco. Eitherway AC oil LLC is Tomcos part in all this.

Hey Will,

As far as I am aware AC oil LLC is a Tomco subsidiary hence the connection, also Heavy Sweet Oil (HSO) is a Valkor subsidiary. So basically, the permits for HSO & AC Oil relates directly to Valkor & Tomco.

I wouldn't say the disappointment in quadrise has been completely priced in. I'd say that those who are invested or are interested in investing understand that the last few good news RNS's aren't as exciting as they seem when you look into the details of it all.

The two recent joint development agreements are great, but they don't currently provide the required structures to help things lift off, and it will be a while until the "development" side of the agreement actually turns into something with substance and actually pay off with revenues. So really, as good as these announcements are, they aren't what gets investors excited.

The Valkor site licence and supply agreement sounds highly substantial in principle, but a quick read of the RNS will quickly dampen what should've be a substantial marker for Quadrise, but instead it shows something less solid as the agreement wholly relies upon Valkor/Tomco being granted those permits, as without them no Msar/BioMsar will flow. I and many others who follow Valkor/Tomco will know that there is no guarantee those permits will be granted, most especially considering the ongoing legal dispute with Hoodoo on their rights to drill. Therefore, a large dose of scepticism followed this supply agreement like a bad smell and will require those permits to be granted by the Utah board before any real excitement can even begin to grow here.

So, given all the above, its understandable why the last 3 good RNS's haven't boosted the shareprice as we would have wanted. If Valkor had their permits granted and started drilling just as the Quadrise agreement RNS came out, then I have no doubt in my mind we would be seeing a much higher shareprice right now due to the fact that the agreement would be all but guaranteed along with revenues it would generate, but unfortunately thats not currently how things have played out. 

However, if we get some genuinely good news with decent and solid guarantees/affirmations that aren't tied to shakey ifs and buts, then I have no doubt the shareprice will roll north quite substantially.

There is currently no concrete evidence to suggest that PQE is filling for bankruptcy, delisting from a specific exchange does not correlate to bankruptcy as there could be many reasons for doing such a thing that does not involve going under.

Personally, I'm not optimistic about PQE myself and can only hope to get back what I put in, but I wouldn't go around stating comments that allude to it being the end of PQE when there is no direct evidence of such things, and only speculation. Based on PQE's current RNS about fixing amendments to their December share finances, I'd hope this means they are close to finalising their audit followed by a quick trade resumption, but thats me dreaming.

Could PQE go bankrupt, sure, any company could under the right conditions, and PQE aren't exactly in a great place right now, but without a solid RNS's stating such things I'll take all idea's leaning that way with a pinch of salt, same goes for likeminded thoughts around Tomco.

Great news, and glad to get a positive RNS, but without being a debbie downer, its worth noting that this is all conditional on whether or not Valkor/Tomco are granted their permits. Anyone invested in Tomco like myself will know that there is some ongoing shakey ground around if the permits will be granted due to a dispute between an oil company Hoodoo and Valkor/Tomco on whether Valkor/Tomco have the rights to drill within the selected land.

The hearing is on the 28th of June, but if the Utah DNR board decide further evidence is required to make a decision it will be delayed until the 23rd of August which is what Quadrise is referring to regarding their August timeline. It's possible the Utah DNR board may decide that there is enough evidence to side with Valkor/Tomco on the 28th June and grant the permits then, which could speed things up for Quadrise and potential revenues, but given all the evidence and how Hoodoo is playing things, its more than likely there will be a delay until 23rd August.

I can only hope that with Valkor pushing this forward with Quadrise that this means they and their legal team are highly confident that they have the rights to drill and so the DNR board move to grant, but I'd still take things with a dose of salt with this ongoing dispute as anything could happen.

Overall I'm very happy with this RNS announcement, but I'm also being rather conservative with regards to the condition wholly pinned on these permits, things are so rarely straightforward lol.

I doubt it now Elir, the Hoodoo debacle has been delayed to 23rd August and the draw down is coming to an end soon, leaving Tomco with little to no revenue to keep the lights on. That draw down was no doubt given to bridge the gap until the permits were granted and hopefully the funding package finalised and signed. Now with Hoodoo sticking their cretinous oar in and delaying things even further it puts things on very shaky grounds for Tomco and their funding.

I definitely feel Hoodoo did all this on purpose knowing Tomco is already in a financially fragile state relying on a lot of hope for this funding. We can only hope Valkor or other major investors have Tomco's back here, because of Hoodoo take this further and into the courts it would simply become unfeasible unless they found somewhere else to drill away from Hoodoo’s slimy hands.

Thanks DoN, you are great source of valid information.

I have to say, given the extent of the rebuttal that hopefully Valkor/Tomco have a decent and legally standing case to rebutt Hoodoo’s request and its striked out on or swiftly after the 12th June, as I seriously do not want this going up to the courts, as that will take an unknown length of time, and if from what I've seen from court proceedings are anything to go by, then it could take many months if not a year or more depending how far Hoodoo wants to take this.

The major issue if this case isn't won and taken further would be, how will Tomco fare given their current financial situation remains on drawing down on a loan with little to no revenue streams to keep them afloat. In addition, how long will the current TSHII land holder wait and extend Tomco's request until funding is granted, as no doubt with each extention the land owner becomes more and more impatient wondering if and when Tomco will ever come good with the required funds. And then there is a matter of the funds itself, if this matter drags on and on and the key requirement to the funders signing the funding package was indeed contingent on Valkor/Tomco getting these permits, then that runs the risk of the potential funders walking away due to the once positive business proposal looking more and more shakey and unknown.

Either way, Hoodoo has really thrown a spanner here, we all just have to just hope it is a nothingburger and thrown out by the DNR board and Valkor/Tomco have a contingency in place.

And that's interesting Fade, I do remember vaguely about the land swap. Hopefully our concerns will be resolved on or shortly after the 12th of June, either way its squeaky bum time lol.

After looking more in depth at the drill request from Valkor/Tomco and the objection paper from Hoodoo, it appears that neither Hoodoo nor Valkor/Tomco hold the rights to the oil that Valkor/Tomco are after.

This is the section which outlines Valkor/Tomco's (Leased substances) i.e. what they are allowed to extract.

"This Lease grants the right to extract the following substances (“leased substances”): “Bituminous Sands – Asphaltic Sands” as classified and defined in Utah Administrative Code R850-22-200, means rock or sand impregnated with asphalt or heavy oil and is synonymous with the term “tar sands.” This lease does not cover any substances, either combustible or non-combustible, which are  produced in a gaseous or rarefied state at ordinary temperature and pressure conditions other than gas which results from artificial introduction of heat. Nor does this lease embrace any right to recover any liquid hydrocarbon substance which occurs naturally in a liquid form in the earth regardless of depth, including drip gasoline or other natural condensate recovered from gas, nor does this lease authorize recovery of any gilsonite, oil shale, elaterite, ozocerite, or any other hydrocarbons, or bituminous compounds excepting rock or sand impregnated with asphalt or heavy oil which dries to a viscous or solid bitumen near the surface of the earth."

As it states Valkor/Tomco have the exclusive rights to all surfaces tar sands, but pretty much nothing else below that.

The Hoodoo (leased substances) section of their lease states the following:

"Leased Substances include: (i) oil, including all naturally occurring crude petroleum, oil and other hydrocarbons regardless of gravity if produced at the wellhead in liquid form; (ii) natural gas, including normal hydrocarbon gases, casinghead gas, coalbed methane, and other commercial gases, including but not limited to helium, carbon dioxide, and gaseous sulfur compounds; and (iii) liquid hydrocarbons such as distillate or condensate recovered or extracted from gas. This Lease expressly excludes non associated hydrocarbons defined herein as coal, bitumen, asphaltum and other associated heavy hydrocarbons occurring in tar sands, oil shale and gilsonite, all of which must be separately leased from Lessor."

Essentially Hoodoo only have the rights to naturally occurring oil in "liquid" form and expressly excludes all heavy hydrocarbons, bitumen, asphaltum and other heavy hydrocarbons in tar sands and oil shale, basically the stuff Valkor/Tomco want.

Essentially, Hoodoo is contesting the fact that whilst they themselves don't have any rights to the oil, that neither does Valkor/Tomco based on the definition of "Leased Substances". Unfortunately, if the Valkor/Tomco leased substance list is exhaustive, then it would seem that Valkor/Tomco don't have the rights to extract the oil they want.

I just hope I'm missing something Valkor/Tomco know that'll rebuttal this objection

Well from the what has been stated it seems this Hoodoo company has pretty much all the rights to this portion of land bar the recovery of oil from surface sands. What on earth was Tomco & Valkor thinking in regard to trying to obtain drill permits in areas which they clearly have no right to drill in. How on earth could this have been missed is beyond me, the terms of the land lease are clear for all to see and even a quick skim read would have told Tomco/Valkor that they only have rights to the surface sands and nothing below it. It makes no sense how this was missed and pushed forward, the incompetence is quite shocking.

I'm unsure of the finer details regarding the parcels of land and who owns what and how deep etc. And so, I can only hope that where Tomco/Valkor hope to drill only slightly encroaches upon Hoodoo's land and most of the drill sites are within land we can drill in, because if all the land they want to drill is within Hoodoo's leases, then we are quite frankly buggered, unless we quickly find land that allows us to drill or Hoodoo, Tomco & Valkor come to a settlement whereby drilling is allowed to commence if Tomco/Valkor give Hoodoo a portion of the profits.

Yes, they were tests done by Quadrise rather than trials to see if the surface sand oil and the drilled well oil were viable for Msar/BioMsar. Quadrise concluded a while ago that both the oil from surface sands and oil from the test wells were viable for both Msar/BioMsar production, and no further tests were required to move forward, so there is no issues surrounding this. However, the "trials" suggested by Quadrise is something that to my knowledge has never been confirmed on the side of Tomco/Valkor as far as I am aware of atleast, could be corrected on that if anyone knows an RNS or news from Tomco/Valkor regarding this.

So as far as I know there is no dispute or any further testing needed for the Utah oil regarding its viability for Msar/BioMsar as confirmed by Quadrise themselves. Quadrise currently has a Commercial Development Agreement (CDA) with Valkor, and whilst this agreement seems to be between Valkor and Quadrise, Tomco's AC oil is an integral part of Valkors oil drilling project, hense any agreements between Valkor and Quadrise benefits Tomco.

However, apart from this CDA I can't see anywhere that stipulates potential "Trials" or a potential supply of fuel for trials in the local area of Utah. Then again, with Valkor being a private company they don't need to declare sensitive news like a public company does, so it is possible that any trials are hidden behind Valkor. I still hold hope that MSC are somehow involved in Utah, as the oil from Utah screams cheap low sulphur Msar/BioMsar which will only benefit and save MSC to the tune of billions over time compared to the other much more expensive options.

I know its probably been posted here before, but I've added the links to the DNR hearings today, not sure exactly what time the Tomco/Valkor permit hearing will be, as no doubt there will be other oil and gas permit hearings throughout aswell.

Utah Division of Oil, Gas & Mining Briefing

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xiDbLAdtltQ

Utah Division of Oil, Gas & Mining Hearing

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xSMONy_4wFQ

Good luck all and fingers crossed that things lean in our favour🤞.

And Hot, that could certainly be the case, but I'm not aware of any known "Trials" for Msar/BioMsar locally in Utah. I'm not even aware of Valkor or Tomco ever alluding to such trials, as if there were any on their side it would make sense for there to be some sort of RNS or news outlining a potential supply agreements from Tomco/Valkor for these trials. Then again, it could all be very hush hush, but it seems Quadrise are the only ones suggesting the oil from Utah will be used for "trials" and the only trials I know of thats happening in the exact same H2 2023 is the MSC LONO trials. Maybe I could be missing something from all the noise, if so, I'd love to see some evidence to connect the dots, if I'm wrong in any of my assumption I'll gladly shift to where the evidence suggests, but as stated, my dot connecting yesterday was merely speculation on my part from what I know and can see. Hopefully all will be revealed soon.

Well, tomorrow is a very important milestone and one that if the permits are finally granted in full, then it should be a rather large boost for Tomco/Valkor if oil can start flowing.

However, the next immediate question will be that if those permits do pass tomorrow, then does that mean the condition to getting this long standing funding over the line has finally been met along with the long awaited funding RNS quickly following the next day? and if the permits were not one of the conditions for the funding of Tomco/Greenfield, then what is.

As already known on the Quadrise front, they are wanting these permits granted ASAP so oil can flow and one of their units can be deployed so the low sulphur oil can be converted into low sulphur Msar/BioMsar for "Client" trials in H2 2023. Quadrise never directly state who the "client" trials are with, but the only known Quadrise trials set for H2 2023 for are for the MSC LONO trials which are also set for H2 2023.

It would make sense if this oil is used for the trial as it is a highly sought after very low sulphur oil and would only benefit Quadrise in relation to the result of the trial whilst also keeping costs down for all those involved. Quadrise also states that these trials could then lead to a commercial supply agreement which I can only interpret as a commercial supply agreement for a portion of MSC's fleet with low sulphur Msar/BioMsar. MSC would get their much needed low sulphur Msar/BioMsar at a highly discounted rate compared to similar low sulphur fuels, Quadrise would get royalties from Valkor/Tomco using their tech and a portion of the profits for each barrel of Msar/BioMsar sold, and Valkor/Tomco would get the lions share of the profits via selling their low sulphur Msar/BioMsar oil to MSC.

Ofcourse all the above in relation to my dot connecting is speculation and I could be wrong, but for me, this is the only logical step surrounding all this. As such, it makes me wonder if one of the major backers behind Tomco's Greenfield project is MSC, it would make some sense given its MSC who would be needing the Msar/BioMsar to fuel their current fleet, and they will need a large project like Greenfield to continue to fuel that demand and the low sulphur oil in Utah is the perfect oil for what they need.

The alternative for MSC is to convert highly expensive refined low sulphur oil into Msar/BioMsar which would be an extortionate cost compared to funding Greenfield and getting Low sulphur Msar/BioMsar straight from the pump removing all refinery costs and getting Msar/BioMsar for a fraction of the cost. In addition, if MSC was a backer they'd also reap the rewards of Greenfield further lowering costs. If I were MSC I know what I'd do and save myself potentially billions in the long term. I can only dream that I am right about the above as it would tightly tie Quadrise and Tomco together and highly benefit both investment, hopefully sods law isn't invoked and we get a long deserve

I sent an email to Investor Relations yesterday due to my concerns surrounding the lack of clarity and reassurances following the negative RNS. I recieved a reply today stating the below:

Thanks for your email and understanding.

We are doing everything we can from our side to be ready to re-commence next month, however this is pending client production timetables which are announced at relatively short notice, as well as the logistics of importing new parts to Morocco - hence our inability to pin a firm date down in the RNS.

The client remains fully supportive.

Kind regards,

QFI IR

So, whilst nothing solid has been given, they are hoping to get Morocco kick started again next month and that the Morocco client is remaining fully supportive. I'll take the timeframe there with a large dose of salt, but I'm glad i got a reply and that the client is still fully backing the trial despite the setback.

Whilst stuff like this can happen, one would expect a company that specialises in this area to be prepared for such events. Given Quadrise knows the stress and strains on their own parts when things are under certain levels of load, I'd expect them to know and list parts that could potentially fail under these circumstances, and prepare for them by bringing extra parts. Whilst you cannot prepare for every known event, it still stands to reason that a company that is testing under such sensitive times would atleast try and counter for most of the known issues regarding stress test events.

Whilst there is no way to spin this RNS as anything other than disappointing, it would have most certainly lessened the blow if things were given more solid timeframes and weren't so ambiguous, as this just leads to speculation.

Before this RNS came out I would have thought Quadrise would have immediately spoken to the client and stated how long it will take for the part to arrive and then negotiated the trial for the next production run as stated. The part unlike the fuel would have little to no resistance at customs, and surely the client knows exactly when their next production run is, as I very much doubt they wouldn't know the exact dates of their own production runs for atleast the next year or more in advance, there is no production company in history that does not have such forward planning.

As such, given the small testing issue, I'd have hoped a quick renegotiation on adding Quadrise to the next run with a bare minimum of a rough month on when that is would have sufficed, simply saying the next production run does not ease any tension with shareholders and only brings wondering minds and ambiguity on when that is. There is most certainly a lot more that could have been done, solidified and negotiated before this RNS came out, they had until the end of June to do this. It wasn't exactly a complete system failure either, it was an issue with a single part which is apparently being expedited as we speak, so I'd have expected an RNS with something more solid in return.

Whilst I tend to give Quadrise the benefit of the doubt, they have disappointed me on this RNS, not necessarily because of the issue that occurred, but morso the way they have relayed that information to their shareholders, leaving everything up in the air with pretty much zero reassurances.

Again, It is most certainly a disappointing RNS and a set back, but I am still in the mindframe that morocco is by no means dead, despite Quadrise's handling of this information. It is certainly a facepalm moment for the event and the way they conveyed this RNS with little regard.

As much as dilution sucks its not always a bad thing, especially if it leads to substantial gains in the long run. In addition, the loaner asked for the debt to be repaid in shares, which can only be a good sign on our end as it shows that the person/organisation that loaned the money values the companies shares more than it does in simple monetary repayment value. Ofcourse that does not mean things are in any way guaranteed, but to throw a million quid at such a small cap high risk company to draw down on, with a repayment in shares can only mean the person/organisation who loaned that money is in high confidence of something coming good from all this and the results could end in them getting their funds back in mutiple times the value of the loan itself.

Ofcourse, the loaner of the money has gotten a very good deal, as I would expect when putting such substantial funds into a high risk small cap company. On this particular tranche they got £210,000 worth of shares at a price of £0.00163133, I'd love to average my shares down with that.

Some may say they got too good of a deal, but lets be honest, not many would throw in a million pounds towards a potentially failing small cap company without a good reason or deal, even at a decent gamble, unless you are so absurdly rich that loaning a million quid is like throwing pennies into a pond, and if thats the case, then why on earth would such a person with that much money be at all interested in the shares of such a small, insignificant and potentially high risk failure, unless ofcourse they were reassured that it isn't such a potential failure and things are looking more positive behind the scenes than we are aware of, that or they did it out of sheer boredom of having so much money, but something tells me its the former.

On the flip side, the loaner has put themselves in the exact same boat as the rest of us when their loan is converted into shares, if whatever Tomco has to offer goes under, then they, like all of us risks their shares plummeting to pretty much nothing, no matter how much nicer their average is compared to ours. Therefore, in many ways as much as I hate this loan causing dilution, it's also a big plus that they wanted shares than their money back in pure monetary value. Take it as you will, but personally I see more positives than negatives from it.

Whilst this keeps dropping to new lows, all I keep wishing is that I had the money to average down further. This stock like all stocks is and will always been a gamble, although Tomco is more of a gamble than most, and I accept that.

However, despite the constant delays etc. My gut keeps telling me that something could still come good. After watching the DNR collaborative meeting in April and how Utah is significantly ramping up supply lines in anticipation of Utah becoming a substantial oil hub, in addition to the very recent and substantial investments of 3 major holders is giving me some gut vibes and hope that this isn't a lost stock just yet.

As many have pointed out, it very much feels the consistent delays and waiting is potentially tied to those permits being granted, and given how the Utah DNR are expecting substantial oil growth in the Utah area, it would seem that gaining those permits would be in Valkor/Tomco's favour regarding striking this background deal, but as always it's never guaranteed, but it would be very odd for them not to grant the permits if they themselves seem to support this substantial local oil growth. The only thing I could see getting in the way of a the permits would be any potential environmental impacts, but the last DNR interview on this matter regarding Valkor/Tomco, the experts stated it wasn't an issue, I guess we just have to hope the DNR board think that this is the case too.

Anyway, all we can do is cross our fingers that the new permit request goes through next week, if it does, then it could be a precursor to those in the background finally signing the dotted line to get whatever funding deal is in place finally over the line, and if that happens it will be interesting where the shareprice goes from there. However, no doubt it will all depend on how this funding is applied, such as whether or not Tomco sells most of greenfield and simply keeps royalties and some profit or if Greenfield stays fully in Tomco's hands, I personally have my doubts about the latter and have already accepted the former being the case, that's if anything actually goes through that is.

GL all in hope of some good news next next week.

Whilst having an institutional investor drop or downsize Quadrise as an investment is never a good thing, it's also not a major issue either. Institutional Investors are extremely ridged and don't convey any personal feelings or commitment towards investing in a company like alot of individual investor like us can, when investing for themselves or their clients all they see a spreadsheet of potential gains or not, and if that spreadsheet does not do what they want within the timframe they hold for themselves, then they will simply adjust their finances depending on certain factors and invest elsewhere.

Institutional investors have certain commitments to their board and clients to reach certain targets within a given timframe, and just because Quadrise doesn't fit their current financial agenda does not suddenly mean Quadrise must be going down the pan, in most respects it simply means that Quadrise is not meeting the investors own financial targets, nothing more.

Very rarely will an Institutional investor buy shares solely on the premise that they truly believe in the technology or the company itself, in most respects they will only see certain financial gaining factors which could gain them and their clients money i.e. Quadrise is currently working with MSC which could come good and lead to commercialisation which in turn would raise the shareprice enough to potentially meet their own internal targets set for Quadrise, if Quadrise does not meet those targets or it surpasses their risk factor, then they will simply up and sell no questions asked, its nothing personal, its just business.

Ofcourse, investors like us can take any sell of a major investor as a negative thing and whilst it is negative, for me anyway it should be taken with a pinch of salt, most especially if nothing outwardly negative has come to from the lips of Quadrise themselves. Always be cautious when investing, but investing or adjusting your stake in a company based on a few institutional investors will also have some pretty big drawbacks itself. Simply do your due diligence and go with your gut and my gut is personally telling me to hold right now, but ofcourse do as you please as its your money no one elses.

I have to admit, its not looking great given the poor history and consistent delays. However, the Utah DNR collaborative meeting a couple of weeks ago has given me some hope and clarity on the matter, with the expectation that the Uinta Basin will become a major oil production hub in the near future with exponential growth widely expected, transportation links are currently being widened and growing rapidly to meet the future demand along with considerable tax breaks being handed out to spur on that growth and investment.

To me, it certainly feels a production boom is coming to the Uinta Basin, but the question is, will Tomco be there to see it happen. That is something I'm still 50/50 on, and right now it seems Tomco and the deal could be heavily tied to if & when these permits are granted, and the latest news for this isn't due until late May, so I don't expect anything of substance to come out of Tomco until after that meeting along with if and when the permits are granted.

So as it stands the shareprice is at an alltime low and I can only wish I could take advantage to average down. I am cautiously optimistic, but frustrated nonetheless, I can only hope the coin lands our way in the coming months, gl all.