I do thank you for your reply to my comment. A lot has changed in those 1 1/2 years. Tech. and government policies, both have made oil and gas gold. We now have the resources to go after the 3.2-3.7 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalents. Big oil companies want what we got big time. We know what we hold.
What effect do you think this will have on MMAT when many of the long term holders of both MMAT and MMTLP put some or all of their winnings into MMAT as many have said they would. I know I will because I like MMAT.
Good article until your comment about the valve of the assets of the oil and gas of the Orogrande. I think if you had did more DD about the value of these assets you would not have made this statement.
I know that my opinion is not popular in this regard, but I also don't think it is material to function of the squeeze. I like to highlight the knows and not promote any unknowns. If you are right, I'll buy you a beer. My original write-up on MMAT and TRCH was on the merger, and I interviewed six people about the value of the land. Granted it was a year and a half ago, but the valued varied greatly and I included those in the article. Penny https://www.reddit.com/r/trakstocks/comments/lu0x85/hydrocarbons_to_carbon_nanotubes_meta_and/
I am a holder of some MMTLP for the short squeeze. I just want to point that I don't think the numbers you cite hold up. At 6.6M shares shorted, this is hopefully low, and the 743K average trading can be seen as too low, as it includes lots of days of little trading that brings the number down. It has traded much higher than that recently. I'm pointing this out because I think, based on your numbers, it means that the shorts could cover well before the 14 day window after the S-1 approval.
I do thank you for your reply to my comment. A lot has changed in those 1 1/2 years. Tech. and government policies, both have made oil and gas gold. We now have the resources to go after the 3.2-3.7 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalents. Big oil companies want what we got big time. We know what we hold.
I'm hoping to be wrong!
I'm one of those zero cost holders and am holding strong.
What effect do you think this will have on MMAT when many of the long term holders of both MMAT and MMTLP put some or all of their winnings into MMAT as many have said they would. I know I will because I like MMAT.
I'm a zero cost holder but I also purchased 500 more & holding strong
Good article until your comment about the valve of the assets of the oil and gas of the Orogrande. I think if you had did more DD about the value of these assets you would not have made this statement.
I know that my opinion is not popular in this regard, but I also don't think it is material to function of the squeeze. I like to highlight the knows and not promote any unknowns. If you are right, I'll buy you a beer. My original write-up on MMAT and TRCH was on the merger, and I interviewed six people about the value of the land. Granted it was a year and a half ago, but the valued varied greatly and I included those in the article. Penny https://www.reddit.com/r/trakstocks/comments/lu0x85/hydrocarbons_to_carbon_nanotubes_meta_and/
You probably know the geology company estimated 3.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil?
I am a holder of some MMTLP for the short squeeze. I just want to point that I don't think the numbers you cite hold up. At 6.6M shares shorted, this is hopefully low, and the 743K average trading can be seen as too low, as it includes lots of days of little trading that brings the number down. It has traded much higher than that recently. I'm pointing this out because I think, based on your numbers, it means that the shorts could cover well before the 14 day window after the S-1 approval.
Here are a couple of sites that describe shorts (not including any naked shorts): https://marketwirenews.com/stock/mmtlp/short/
https://otcshortreport.com/company/MMTLP
For your own protection you should include a disclosure statement on the article, or within your Newsletter.
Thank you, I'm not sure how I left it off!