Cash flow is good. I don't see a debt problem. At $2 a share, it looks like bargain. I haven't pored over the SEC reports and don't know the industry, so that's just a quick impression. What, if anything, in the last report should change the investment thesis regarding this stock?
Do you mean this comment, by seeking alpha author geopressure?
"IFNY's entire company is based upon their concession that they know very little about. Mobil drilled some shallow wells in the area back in the 70's but didn't find anything remotely closing to being economically viable. Exxon has since bought Mobil & is now in possession of Mobil's old seismic data. One would think that if IFNY's concession had reserves anywhere similar to those of NBL's concession, that NBL or Exxon would have a deal in place with IFNY - but of course they do not.
"If you take a close look @ at page 21 of IFNY's investor presentation you will note that IFNY arrives at their estimated reserves (1-10 BBOE) by assuming that a reservoir exist that is a constant 90 ft thick, has 20% porosity, & 65% oil saturations (65% is the highest saturation of oil ever recorded on earth & only limestone is capable of such high oil saturations). The wide range in calculated reserves is from the IFNY varying the size (area) that their possible traps cover. There is no seismic behind these calculations, no drilling data to support these numbers, it is just a wild guess based of their assumption that a 90' thick pay sand exist which has 65% saturation of oil over up to 547 square miles.
"For all IFNY knows, there reserves could be 0 bbls of oil because this 90' thick perfect reservoir might not exists - clearly Exxon & NBL (two companies with the seismic data) do not seem to think it exists.
"Furthermore, I think a previous poster hinted that because NBL has a pre-drill estimated 270MM BBLs of reserves & IFNY's concession is 'next door' that IFNY must have significant reserves too. The poster who made this suggestion 'tritonpacific' is clearly not a geologists. NBL is drilling a very specific carbonate shoal-type play that only exists under NBL's concession. Again, if NBL thought that the play extended under IFNY's concession, then there would be a deal in place........"
Let's see. You said "Stan and Hutchins gave up the revenue-sharing." When asked to support that, you produced text that had nothing to do with revenue-sharing. When this was pointed out, you replied "correct." You were again asked to support your comment, and replied "I did."
You have all the intelligence of a scam penny-stock investor.
You were asked to explain your comment: "...Stan and Hutchins gave up the revenue-sharing (and their guaranteed $100 million to $1 billion) for warrants at a strike price of $3."
The officers still have a right to 1% of Infinity's revenue.
The text you quote has nothing to do with revenue sharing. And, it is 10 months old. The revenue sharing is mentioned in the last report.
"Mr. Clown missed the part of the 10-K where Stan and Hutchins gave up the revenue-sharing (and their guaranteed $100 million to $1 billion) for warrants at a strike price of $3."
Where are you reading that?
They gave Aspire over 200,000 shares to do the deal. When Aspire buys the stock, it gets the lower of the lowest price that day, or some average low price over the last 12 trading days.
These are new shares being issued by CTIX, thus diluting the common shareholder.
FROM THE LAST REPORT: "The Company’s operating plans require additional funds which may take the form of debt or equity financings. The Company’s ability to continue as a going concern is in substantial doubt and is dependent upon achieving profitable operations and obtaining additional financing. There is no assurance additional funds will be available on acceptable terms or at all."
It has a large working capital deficit. It looks like it needs to raise a lot of cash in the next 3 months, or close up the shop.
The shares are being offered to the public. It was overpriced over $1.50, which is why the company wants to sell its own shares at $1.70.
It's the same old scam. The company has no money, and all future development will come at the expense of shareholders. The management in companies like this sell a high-risk, high-reward speculative play as if math and the balance sheet don't matter to such investments. Math always matters, and if you tell yourself otherwise you are a fool about to be parted from his money. In the unlikely event there is profit to be made from its assets, developing the asset will force massive dilution of the common shareholder. If asset can't be profitably mined, the stock is worthless.
Math always matters--more in high-risk, high-reward investing, not less.