Member Info for OandGeo

They've said 500 wouldn't be economic, but 5000 as you say would be. They're going for 2x 10k plants...why not go for 1x 5k plant and lease the land until they can buy it?

It would need a majority of shareholders to make a difference Vauch. Tomco has a cosmically small count of holders and many have been here for enough time to raise children. They're unengaged, and at any AGM in the past have been unorganized in any effort to take action.

Many shares are held by a few individuals. You'll kindly remember that as time has gone by, these large stakeholders have seen 50, 80, 90% decreases in the value of their holdings.

It should be made clear that there avenues on the table which the board is passing by.

-->Scalable approach. Instead of 2x 10k bpd plants and all of TSII, why not seek funding for 1x 5k bpd plant, and continue leasing TSII with extended option to purchase.

-->Take the deal on the table. Sell majority stake in Greenfield in exchange for large capital injection.

It needs to be made clear to shareholders why these viable options are not being pursued, in favor of a questionable funding package that may not be obtainable, while diluting shares.

I suggest talking more about these other options, specifically.

Writing to john@tomcoenergy.com would be a start, and voting as a shareholder, and using rational discourse to draw other shareholders to this opinion so they will vote as well.

I don't see any cohesive opinion amongst shareholders other than 'we are doomed, and they are making too much money.' I don't think either are necessarily true or useful, but shareholders should push Tomco to 'move forward' with means available in 2024, immediately. I think this is a more useful online perspective than complaining, and it might gain a bit more traction than you think.

I'll have the world know that my post was published with proper capitalization, which all turned to lower case when posted. Perhaps because my expletive was removed. Cheers, and discussion welcome.

gents, i think it's time we come together as shareholders and put some pressure on tomco management for action. if the current solution is to look for 'unobtanium' or large scale funding, 2 big plants, the whole tsii lease - this option has been explored for over 24 months. this has been explored by management at the expense of costly share dilution that is not sustainable. it's apparently difficult to get this loan in today's world. there is not more global market stability on the horizon, but less.

-->one alternative would be a scalable approach. we've heard the old petroteq plant couldn't operate at 500 bpd with a profit. this plant was old and small. instead of 2x 10k bpd plants and all of tsii, why not seek funding for 1x 5k bpd plant, and continue leasing tsii with extended option to purchase.

-->another alternative would be to take the deal on the table. sell majority stake in greenfield in exchange for large capital injection.

the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. the board should avoid this behavior pattern, but so should we as shareholders. we can maintain the thought that 'rising tide floats all boats,' and while it's exciting to see hso get funding, and trio's interest in the area - hso's funding is for a relatively untested drilling procedure, not mining. if hso is successful, it won't suddenly become easier/cheaper to buy land in the area. if they're unsuccessful or delayed, there's no rising tide for uintah.

i understand there could be something great on the horizon. but it is far past time to deliver. in the states, we crudely say "time to ****, or get off the pot."

please join me in pushing for an achievable outcome which doesn't involve inaccessible means of funding, and delays that cost shareholders diluted holdings year over year.

Technology and the Uinta basin have tremendous opportunity - it's hard to hear the potential for this long when there's **literally** no one mining or drilling or meeting with the DOGM to plan for mining or drilling. I understand funding takes time, but I am wondering if that's really the issue.

We either have a people problem, or our people have an approach problem.

Just a thought guys. When you watch a generic share price on a ticker, there's cash flow, revenue, expenses, a sustaining business model with earnings filings that are better or worse throughout the yr. Tomco doesn't have revenue, their business is not in the sustaining phase. The drivers of this share price aren't typical. Anyone 'trading' this stock is trading on rumors and small press releases. Crabs and charts aren't going to assist here in the typical way.

Anyone 'investing' in the Tomco idea is interested in the next growth catalyst for the business, which is fundraising, building facilities, and drilling wells. If you're waiting on these things, the price is a bit irrelevant and will obviously be driven down the longer they take to materialize. When a catalyst occurs the price will move to whatever it moves to, regardless of how low it gets. We're just hoping any price drop doesn't reflect an unfixable failure to finance.

I don't know much about Spreadex but I'd guess their game is more centered around a quick buck and price outlook on any given day, rather than long term venture capital investment.

Haggis correct that's how I understand it

Per the Dec press release, Tomco would relinquish a % of Greenfield (Tomco subsidiary), not Tomco itself.

There's nothing stopping Tomco from cash flowing on Greenfield plant and later borrowing for a Tomco plant and Tomco land.

At first glance, Tomco is selling 90% stake? I think you're getting the remaining % to be purchased of TSII lease mixed up with a % equity of the company they are prepared to part with in exchange for funds. But I've seen this on a number of boards, this estimate that an equity finance deal would leave Tomco with 20-30% remaining. This is without merit currently?

The quote from recent RNS is "would involve TomCo disposing of a majority stake in Greenfield to a partner(s)" - 49% remaining Tomco equity in Greenfield would be adequate to fit; I wouldn't assume it's substantially less than this until told otherwise.