San Telmo Das große Sprudeln beginnt!!

ins Depot hinzugefügt.
KK 0,29

HAMSI  

San Telmo erweitert Grundstücksposition durch Gold Creek-Akquisition
Calgary, Alberta (ots/PRNewswire) - San Telmo Energy (Nachrichten) (OTCBB:
STUOF; TSX-V: STU) freut sich, die kürzlich abgeschlossene Übernahme
eines Anteils von 50 % an einem zusätzlichen Grundstück in Gold Creek
bekannt zu geben. Hierdurch wird der Grundstückbesitz von San Telmo
im überaus fruchtbaren Halfway/Charlie Lake-Trend auf 960 acres
ausgedehnt. Der Bereich um Gold Creek ist zurzeit eine der
gefragtesten Explorationszonen in der Region Peace River Arch in
Alberta, nachdem kürzlich ein Gaspool im Zwischenstadium entdeckt
wurde, bei dem 5,5 mmcfd gemessen wurden. San Telmo besitzt eine
halbe Meile von diesem aktuellen Entdeckungsort entfernt 960 acres.
San Telmo und sein Joint-Venture-Partner planen zurzeit, dieses Loch,
je nach Witterungsbedingungen und Lizenzanforderungen, bis zum Ende
des Sommers zu bohren.

San Telmo Energy Ltd. ist ein junges Erdöl- und Erdgasunternehmen
mit erfahrenem Management. San Telmo Energy wird durch seine in
Calgary in der kanadischen Provinz Alberta ansässige
hundertprozentige Tochtergesellschaft San Telmo Energy Inc.
betrieben. Der Schwerpunkt des Unternehmens liegt auf der Förderung,
Exploration und Entwicklung von Reserven, welche für das Unternehmen
einen langfristigen Wert bieten

www.santelmoenergy.com

 

Also Leute!
Lange ist es her und man hat sich Kurse von 3$ erhofft. Dem ist
nicht so. Die Firma ist nun etwa 20Mio.$ bewertet. Es fließt auch
Öl bereits. Die Firma hat aber auch Kredit aufgenommen, um weitere
Projekte zu finanzieren. Das ist ist Stand der Dinge also.

Was könnte nun die Aktie zum Steigen bringen?
* Firma unterbewertet?
* Neuer Ölfund?
* Übernahme?
* Neuer Investor?

Meiner Meinung nach ist die Firma nach unten zur Zeit
abgesichert und kann die Aktie halten...

HAMSI
 

Bei dem Ölpreis, sollte man sich doch denken, dass San Telmo auch was davon mitbekommt. Also klarer KAUF!HAMSI  

Hallo, guten Morgen

Hast du News von San telmo,wenn bitte laß was hören,
kann mir nicht erklaeren genau wie du bei diesen Oelpreisen? Hat sich auf US$ 39 erholt aber dann Gestern mit diesen Schock in London, schecklich.
Aber ich erwarte von Tag zu Tag  Neuigkeiten
Gruss olda  

Im Internet habe ich folgendes gefunden, dass alt (etwa 6 Monat) ist, aber auch uns aufwecken sollte, ob es sich wirklich lohnt, langfristig diese Aktie zu halten.

HAMSI

THE BCSC CONNECTION

The BCSC's LOM notice of hearing, filed on May 20, 2004, states that between Sept. 1, 2002, and March 28, 2003, LOM made purchases in San Telmo Energy Ltd., a TSX Venture Exchange-listed company, accounting for 15.5 per cent of purchases and 35 per cent of sales of San Telmo on the TSX-V. LOM accounts were also allegedly responsible for 20 per cent of the upticks in San Telmo's trades during the period. On Nov. 6, 2003, the BCSC stated that commission staff requested that the BMA help it in obtaining the identity of the person or persons trading in San Telmo through LOM. LOM apparently declined to give the information over to the BMA, instead handing over an anonymous list of all trades for San Telmo. The report indicated that LOM accounts bought 1.65 million shares of San Telmo and sold 5.6 million shares over the TSX-V and two other stock exchanges. The BCSC served LOM with a demand for production on April 30, 2004.
 

2005 BCSECCOM 29


LOM (Holdings) Limited, LOM Securities (Bahamas) Limited,
LOM Securities (Bermuda) Limited, LOM Securities (Cayman) Limited,
Lines Overseas Management Limited, Donald P. Lines, Brian N. Lines,
Scott G. S. Lines, Malcolm Mosely, David McNay, and J. Scott Hill

Sections 161(1) and 162 of the Securities Act, RSBC 1996, c. 418

Hearing

     Panel§Brent W. Aitken
Robert J. Milbourne
Roy Wares Vice Chair
Commissioner
Commissioner
Date of Hearing November 24, 2004
Date of Decision January 12, 2005
 Appearing                    §
Nigel Campbell
David E. Gruber For the respondents
James Sasha Angus
Douglas Muir For the Executive Director
Decision

¶ 1 This is a hearing under sections 161(1) and 162 of the Securities Act, RSBC 1996, c. 418. On May 20, 2004, the Executive Director issued a notice of hearing alleging that LOM (Holdings) Limited, LOM Securities (Bahamas) Limited, LOM Securities (Bermuda) Limited, LOM Securities (Cayman) Limited, Lines Overseas Management Limited, Donald P. Lines, Brian N. Lines, Scott G. S. Lines, Malcolm Mosely, David McNay, and J. Scott Hill failed to comply with a demand made by Commission staff under section 144(1) of the Act, and acted contrary to the public interest.

¶ 2 The Executive Director is seeking an order under section 161(1) prohibiting the respondents from trading until they undertake to comply with the Act, and an order for an administrative penalty under section 162 of the Act.

I Background

Overview
¶ 3 Since October 2003 Commission staff has been attempting to investigate a series of trades in shares of San Telmo Energy Inc., a company listed on the TSX Venture Exchange. The trades were made by Lines Overseas Management Limited, which trades through accounts at Canadian investment dealers on behalf of undisclosed beneficial owners.

¶ 4 Commission staff issued a demand under section 144(1) of the Act to Lines Overseas and other companies in the LOM group to find out the identities of the beneficial owners and other details relating to the trades. These companies say they are subject to secrecy laws in Bermuda, the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands and cannot comply with the demand without contravening those laws. The respondents have pursued means of getting Commission staff the information it wants in a way, they say, that does not contravene those laws.

¶ 5 It is unclear from the evidence how successful those efforts have been. The Executive Director says that this is not relevant and the only thing that matters is that the respondents have failed to comply with the section 144(1) demand and the respondents should therefore be sanctioned (including the individual respondents, all of whom are directors and officers of one or more companies in the LOM group). The respondents say they have complied with the demand but in any event it is inappropriate in the circumstances for the Commission to make the orders sought by the Executive Director.

The LOM group of companies
¶ 6 LOM (Holdings) Limited, a public Bermuda company that trades on the Bermuda Stock Exchange, provides investment and wealth management services through four subsidiary companies. These include LOM Securities (Bermuda) Limited, LOM Securities (Bahamas) Limited, and LOM Securities (Cayman) Limited, the brokerage subsidiaries of the LOM group in Bermuda, the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands. LOM Holdings’ fourth subsidiary, Lines Overseas, is an investment firm incorporated and located in Bermuda and provides custody, clearing, trading and administrative services to the LOM group of companies.

¶ 7 Lines Overseas trades securities in Canada on behalf of its clients through brokerage accounts at Canadian investment dealers, including accounts at dealers in British Columbia. Its clients are very active in Canadian markets. Over the past year, Lines Overseas made about 10,000 trades on their behalf in the Canadian financial markets. These trades totaled over 800 million shares and represented a market value of over $1.2 billion. This activity represented about 40% of Lines Overseas’ revenue during the period.

¶ 8 In this decision we sometimes use “LOM” to describe all or some of the companies in the LOM group.

The focus of the investigation
¶ 9 Commission staff wants to investigate a series of trades in shares of San Telmo Energy Inc., a company listed on the TSX Venture Exchange, that occurred between September 2002 and March 2003. Investigators at Market Regulation Services Inc., which operates the Exchange’s market regulation function, noticed that during this period:

· trades by Lines Overseas accounted for a significant proportion of purchases and sales of the shares of San Telmo,
· Lines Overseas was both buyer and seller in some trades (using different accounts at different brokers), and
· trades made by Lines Overseas were responsible for 20% of the upticks in the price of San Telmo shares.

¶ 10 Market Regulation Services referred the matter to Commission staff in October 2003.

¶ 11 Lines Overseas made its trades through accounts at investment dealers in British Columbia. The account opening forms for these accounts indicate that Lines Overseas is a nominee and trades for undisclosed beneficial owners. Commission staff wants to know the identities of the beneficial owners and to obtain information about the trading by these owners in shares of San Telmo.

Efforts surrounding disclosure of information
¶ 12 Commission staff started its quest for information by contacting the Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) in November 2003. On December 1 the BMA passed on the request to LOM. On December 16 LOM responded and the BMA passed the information it obtained from LOM to Commission staff.

¶ 13 The covering letter from the BMA to Commission staff stated that the information was confidential and its public disclosure would be contrary to Bermuda law. The letter went on to say that the information was provided to the British Columbia Securities Commission “solely for the purpose of its regulatory functions” and asked that Commission staff seek the BMA’s consent before disclosing any of the information to a third party.

¶ 14 The information provided fell well short of the information Commission staff requested. Specifically, the information provided by LOM to the BMA did not reveal the names of the beneficial owners of the accounts that Lines Overseas had at British Columbia investment dealers. LOM’s position was that it was prohibited from providing this information under the Bermuda legislation unless the BMA undertook not to provide it to foreign regulators. The BMA replied that it did not give such undertakings and stated that LOM’s failure to comply with the BMA’s original information request would be an offence.

¶ 15 These exchanges were all in correspondence in December 2003. At the end of that month, Lines Overseas asked the Bermuda courts to determine whether the BMA was authorized under Bermudian law to provide to foreign regulators information such as that requested by Commission staff. It says it did this because it wanted to cooperate with the BMA by providing client-specific information, but it did not want to be exposed to civil liability if the BMA then passed that information to a foreign regulator but was not authorized to do so.

¶ 16 On March 4, 2004 Commission staff made a direct request of Lines Overseas to provide the information it had refused to provide to the BMA.

¶ 17 On April 23, the Commission issued an investigation order under section 142 and on April 30, Commission staff issued a demand for production under section 144 of the Act against various parties including some of the respondents. The deadline in the demand was May 7, which was later extended to May 12.

¶ 18 On May 20, the Executive Director issued the notice of hearing in this matter. On June 2, the Commission set the hearing for October 5. The hearing was later adjourned, by consent, to November 24, when it was held.

¶ 19 There were discussions and correspondence over the March through May time frame between Commission staff and LOM counsel about ways that LOM could comply with staff’s demand without contravening Bermuda’s secrecy legislation. In the meantime, LOM was also working with the authorities in Bermuda to seek an amendment to that legislation that would permit it to provide, through the BMA, the information staff was seeking.

¶ 20 One approach suggested by LOM was to seek waivers of confidentiality from the relevant clients. On July 27, LOM provided information about eight beneficial owners of the LOM accounts, all of whom are principals of LOM.

¶ 21 On the same day, LOM suggested that it provide all information demanded to the BMA, the Securities Commission of the Bahamas (SCB), and the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) in accordance with the laws of those jurisdictions, and that Commission staff deal with those authorities, “regulator to regulator” to obtain the information.

¶ 22 Meanwhile, amendments to Bermuda’s secrecy legislation came into force in August, removing LOM’s concern about providing client-specific information to the BMA. On August 24 LOM provided the BMA with what it says is all of the information requested by Commission staff, which the BMA forwarded to staff on September 21. LOM also provided information to the SCB and the CIMA.

¶ 23 On August 25, Commission staff told LOM that it would be making information requests to the SCB and the CIMA. LOM alerted these authorities that the request would be coming.

¶ 24 Hurricanes Francis, Ivan and Jeanne disrupted business in the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands in September, closing LOM offices for about 2 weeks after each storm. In early October, LOM followed up with Commission staff as to the progress of staff’s information requests with these authorities. Two weeks later Commission staff replied to LOM, saying it anticipated cooperation and had provided the authorities with the assurance they sought before releasing the information.

¶ 25 The SCB sent information to Commission staff on November 11 and the CMIA sent information to Commission staff on November 18.

¶ 26 Commission staff says it does not know whether it has all of the information it demanded. In an affidavit sworn the day before the hearing, Commission staff investigator Alan Costin deposed that he had “recently received information from the BMA, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority and the Securities Commission of the Bahamas.” He also deposed, “I have not yet reviewed all of this information and I am unable to determine whether we have received all information that was requested from the respondents.”

II Analysis
¶ 27 Two issues that the parties addressed in their submissions we can deal with summarily, because the law is clear and they are of only tangential relevance.

¶ 28 First, do the secrecy laws of foreign jurisdictions override the investigation and enforcement powers in the Act? Clearly they do not. In Exchange Bank & Trust Inc v British Columbia (Securities Commission) 2000 BCCA 389 the court, in upholding a decision of the Commission refusing to vacate a freeze order (see Re Stephen Sayre et al [2000] 21 BCSC Weekly Summary 75), quoted this, with approval, from the Commission’s decision:

EBT stressed that its ability to present evidence was hampered by the privacy laws of Nevis. That may be so. However, the property subject to the Orders is in British Columbia and it is the securities laws of British Columbia, and those of the United States, that are alleged to have been contravened. EBT chose to locate assets outside the jurisdiction of Nevis and must accept that those assets are subject to laws of the jurisdiction in which they are located, in this case British Columbia. It would be an utter abandonment of the public interest if we were to conclude that a party subject to secrecy laws in another jurisdiction could use those laws to shield themselves from the legitimate exercise of powers to enforce securities regulation in British Columbia. In short, the Nevis privacy laws are not relevant.

¶ 29 Second, must Commission staff first attempt to obtain information demanded under section 144 through the local regulator in a foreign jurisdiction if the person subject to the demand is located, or has records that are located, in that jurisdiction? Clearly Commission staff need not do so. The Act does not limit the investigative powers of Commission staff in this way. In making a demand under section 144(1) of any person over whom the British Columbia Securities Commission has jurisdiction, Commission staff is free to approach the person directly, to seek to obtain the information with the cooperation of the foreign regulator, or to do both.

¶ 30 In any event, these issues are beside the point. This hearing is not about the scope of the investigative powers under the Act. The issue in this hearing is whether, in the circumstances of this case, it is in the public interest to make orders under section 161(1) and 162 for the alleged failure of LOM and its directors and officers to comply with Commission staff’s April 30 demand under section 144(1).

¶ 31 These are the relevant portions of section 144:

144. Investigator’s power at hearing. (1) An investigator appointed under section 142 or 147 has the same power

(a) to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses,
(b) to compel witnesses to give evidence on oath or in any other manner; and
(c) to compel witnesses to produce records and things and classes of records and things

as the Supreme Court has for the trial of civil actions.

(2) The failure or refusal of a witness

(a) to attend,
(b) to take an oath,
(c) to answer questions, or
(d) to produce the records and things or classes of records and things in the custody, possession or control of the witness

makes the witness, on application to the Supreme Court, liable to be committed for contempt as if in breach of an order or judgment of the Supreme Court.

¶ 32 In Re James Nelson McCarney 2003 BCSECCOM 656, the Commission considered the use of temporary order power under section 161 to compel the production of documents and information. It said this:

38 In reading the powerful provisions of Part 17 and 18 together, it is clear that temporary enforcement orders were not intended to be the regulatory tool to compel compliance in the investigative process. Instead, express powers in Part 17 make clear that the appropriate regulatory tool to deal with non-compliance in the investigative process is an application for contempt to the Supreme Court under section 144(2) of the Act.
. . .
40 Section 144(2) of the Act provides an appropriate remedy when a witness fails or refuses to attend, take an oath, answer questions, or to produce the records and things. When these circumstances are present staff may apply to the Supreme Court to have the witness committed for contempt as if in breach of an order or judgment of the Supreme Court.

41 Our conclusion that it was not appropriate in these circumstances for staff to issue temporary enforcement orders to compel production of documents and information during the course of an investigation is consistent with the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Ontario (High Court of Justice) in Ontario (Securities Commission) v. Biscotti [1988] O.J. No. 1115 and 40 B.L.R. 160. In that case the mere threat of a cease trade order by staff of the Ontario Securities Commission in order to compel a potential respondent to testify, invoked the censure of the Court.

¶ 33 In McCarney the Commission was considering the Executive Director’s power to make temporary orders under section 161 without a hearing. However, the same reasoning applies in this case. The Commission’s point in McCarney was that the appropriate means of dealing with a failure to produce information under a demand under section 144(1) is to follow the procedure set out in section 144(2).

¶ 34 McCarney therefore disposes of the issue, but even in the absence of McCarney we do not think it would in the public interest to make orders under section 161 and 162 to enforce section 144 in these circumstances.

¶ 35 First, LOM has been cooperative throughout the process. The evidence shows that LOM not only responded promptly at every stage of the way, it took the initiative in following up with Commission staff and with its local authorities to try to move things along.

¶ 36 Second, although the Executive Director now expresses significant reservations in the hearing about the “regulator to regulator” approach, that is the approach Commission staff took in obtaining the information. It does not lie well upon the Executive Director to ask us for orders under sections 161 and 162 based on LOM’s failure to supply information directly when Commission staff itself chose to proceed on a regulator to regulator basis.

¶ 37 Third, the staff investigator – who has had the BMA information since September – deposed the day before the hearing that he has “not yet reviewed all of this information” and is therefore “unable to determine whether [Commission staff] have received all information . . . requested”. The Executive Director says this is not relevant, but we disagree. Whether Commission staff is now in possession of the information it sought (be it directly or otherwise) is a highly relevant factor in considering whether it is in the public interest to make orders under section 161 and 162 against LOM and its directors and officers.

III Decision
¶ 38 We therefore dismiss the Executive Director’s application.

IV Additional Issue Arising from the Evidence
¶ 39 The evidence before us included the following account opening forms for Lines Overseas’ accounts at British Columbia investment dealers:

1. An undated Haywood Securities Inc. form provided to Commission staff by Bolder Investment Partners. Item 6 of this form asks whether any other persons will have trading authorization or have a financial interest in the account. The form provides a box for a yes or no answer to each of these questions. All of the boxes are blank.

2. A December 12, 1997 Georgia Pacific Securities Corporation form provided to Commission staff by Northern Securities Inc. Item 9 of this form asks whether any person other than the named account holder has any authority over or any financial interest in the account. The box labeled “Yes” beside this question has been ticked. The form requires, for any “yes” answer, that “necessary documentation” be attached. No other documentation appears in the evidence before us.

3. A May 23, 2001 Raymond James Ltd. form. Under the heading “Account and Client Status, the form asks whether any other person will have trading authorization or have a financial interest in the account. The box labeled “No” beside the trading authorization question has been ticked. The box labeled “Yes” beside the financial interest question has been ticked. The form requires, for any “yes” answer, that details be provided, with “attachments if necessary”. No other details or documentation appears in the evidence before us.

4. A September 9, 1996 Union Securities form. This form asks no questions about whether others are authorized to trade or have a financial interest in the account.

5. A November 26, 2002 Research Capital form. This form has questions about whether others are authorized to trade or have a financial interest in the account. The box labeled “No” beside the trading authorization question has been ticked. The box labeled “Yes” beside the financial interest question has been ticked. The form requires, for any “yes” answer, that details be provided. An arrow has been drawn on the form from the ticked “Yes” box to these words: “clients have beneficial ownership”.

¶ 40 There is also an undated new client application form from Desjardins Securities showing a “yes” answer to the financial interest question with the word “clients” written next to it.

¶ 41 As noted in the background above, LOM is very active in Canadian markets – over 10,000 trades over the past year totaling over 800 million shares with a market value of over $1.2 billion. The more significant issue surrounding LOM, it seems to us, arises from the account opening forms described above, which appear to show that at least some of this trading is being done by LOM on behalf of undisclosed beneficial owners. If so, this trading is being carried on without the dealers involved requiring or possessing the appropriate “know-your-client” information.

¶ 42 This issue was not before us, but we cannot turn a blind eye to the evidence. We believe LOM should show cause why it would not be in the public interest for the Commission, under section 161, to order that LOM cease trading securities in British Columbia until it provides all dealers in British Columbia having accounts for LOM the appropriate know-your-client information about those having a financial interest in those accounts.

¶ 43 We therefore direct the parties to file with the Secretary to the Commission written submissions on this issue by the close of business on January 31. Any party who wants to lead evidence or make oral submissions should so advise the Secretary when filing its submissions.

¶ 44 January 12, 2005

¶ 45 For the Commission




Brent W. Aitken
Vice Chair




Robert J. Milbourne
Commissioner




Roy Wares
Commissioner

mfg kram  

Wer kauft denn da 35k Aktien?
HAMSI  

0,32 gebrochen! Man da ist was im Busch. Unglaublich
Und ich habe auch noch 5k bei 0,30 dazugelegt :-))
Weiter so San Telmo
HAMSI  

6.07.2005 12:48
San Telmo Energy setzt neue Bohrung im Teepee Creek
Calgary, Kanada (ots/PRNewswire) - San Telmo Energy (Nachrichten) (OTCBB:
STUOF, TSX-V: STU) ist sehr erfreut mitteilen zu können, dass mit
einer Bohrung in seinem Teepee Creek Besitz 8-3-74-4w6 begonnen
wurde. Es handelt sich um die erste Bohrung des Teepee Creek
Entwicklungsprogramms und sie ist 100-prozentiges Eigentum des
Unternehmens.

Es wird voraussichtlich 10 Tage dauern, bis die Bohrung die
geplante Tiefe von 1650 m (5413 Fuss) erreicht hat. Anschliessend
folgt eventuell ein Untersuchungsprogramm.

Die Gesamtproduktion der beiden Teepee Creek Bohrungen des
Unternehmens belief sich während der letzten beiden Monate auf
durchschnittlich 113 BOE/Tag.

Während dieser Zeit wurde neues Bohrlochgerät installiert was zu
beträchtlichen Ausfallzeiten führte. Aufgrund der aktuellen
Produktionsstunden für Mai und Juni, sind die Bohrungen in der Lage,
ca. 204 BOE/Tag fördern.

Informationen zu San Telmo Energy Ltd

San Telmo Energy Ltd. ist ein junges Öl- und Gasunternehmen mit
einem sehr erfahrenen Management-Team. San Telmo Energy Ltd. wird als
100-prozentige Tochtergesellschaft der in Calgary, Alberta,
ansässigen San Telmo Energy Inc. betrieben und hat sich auf die
Produktion, Erschliessung und Entwicklung von Vorkommen mit
potenziell langfristigen Wertzuwachs spezialisiert.

Falls Sie mehr über San Telmo Energy Ltd. (OTCBB: STUOF, TSX-V:
STU) erfahren wollen, besuchen Sie unsere Website unter
www.santelmoenergy.com

Vorausschauende Aussage

Diese Pressemitteilung enthält eventuell zukunftsorientierte
Aussagen im Sinne der "Safe-Harbour"-Bestimmungen des
US-amerikanischen Wertpapiergesetzes "Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act" von 1995 bezüglich des Geschäftes oder der finanziellen
Situation von San Telmo Energy. Tatsächliche Ergebnisse können
aufgrund einer Vielzahl von Faktoren, von denen einige ausserhalb der
Kontrolle des Unternehmens liegen, wesentlich von den in dieser
Pressemitteilung beschriebenen abweichen.

TSX Venture Exchange hat diese Pressemitteilung nicht überprüft
und übernimmt keine Verantwortung für ihre Angemessenheit oder
Genauigkeit.

Originaltext: San Telmo Energy Ltd.
Digitale Pressemappe: http://presseportal.de/story.htx?firmaid=51397
Pressemappe via RSS : feed://presseportal.de/rss/pm_51397.rss2

Pressekontakt:
Weitergehende Informationen erhalten sie über: San Telmo Energy
Corporate Communications, Tel.: +1-866-880-5610, E-Mail:
corporate@santelmoenergy.com
 

09.08.2005 12:51
San Telmo Energy bringt neue Bohrung in Gordondale nieder und aktualisiert Informationen zur Teepee Creek Bohrung
Calgary, Kanada (ots/PRNewswire) - San Telmo Energy Ltd. (Nachrichten) (OTCBB:
STUOF, TSX-V: STU) ist sehr erfreut mitteilen zu können, dass eine
Bohrung im Gebiet 16-22-79-9-W6 niedergelassen wird. Es handelt sich
um die erste Probebohrung im Rahmen des Gordondale
Entwicklungsprogramms und sie ist 100-prozentiges Eigentum des
Unternehmens.

Es wird voraussichtlich 8 Tage dauern, bis die Bohrung die
geplante Tiefe von 1650 m (5413 Fuss) erreicht hat. Anschliessend
folgt eventuell ein Untersuchungsprogramm. Die 8-3 Teepee Creek
Probebohrung ist abgeschlossen und ausgekleidet. Die Untersuchungen
werden voraussichtlich in der zweiten Hälfte August beginnen.

Informationen zu San Telmo Energy Ltd

San Telmo Energy Ltd. ist ein junges Öl- und Gasunternehmen mit
einem sehr erfahrenen Management-Team. San Telmo Energy Ltd. wird als
100-prozentige Tochtergesellschaft der in Calgary, Alberta,
ansässigen San Telmo Energy Inc. betrieben und hat sich auf die
Produktion, Erschliessung und Entwicklung von Vorkommen mit
potenziell langfristigen Wertzuwachs spezialisiert.

Weitergehende Informationen erhalten sie über:
San Telmo Energy Corporate Communications
+1-866-880-5670
E-Mail: corporate@santelmoenergy.com.

Falls Sie mehr über San Telmo Energy Ltd. (OTCBB: STUOF, TSX-V:
STU) erfahren wollen, besuchen Sie unsere Website unter
www.santelmoenergy.com

Vorausschauende Aussage

Diese Pressemitteilung enthält eventuell zukunftsorientierte
Aussagen im Sinne der "Safe-Harbour"-Bestimmungen des
US-amerikanischen Wertpapiergesetzes "Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act" von 1995 bezüglich der geschäftlichen bzw. finanziellen
Situation von San Telmo Energy. Tatsächliche Ergebnisse können
aufgrund einer Vielzahl von Faktoren, von denen einige ausserhalb des
Einflussbereichs des Unternehmens liegen, wesentlich von den in
dieser Pressemitteilung angegebenen abweichen.

TSX Venture Exchange hat diese Pressemitteilung nicht überprüft
und übernimmt keine Verantwortung für ihre Angemessenheit oder
Genauigkeit.

Originaltext: San Telmo Energy Ltd.
Digitale Pressemappe: http://presseportal.de/story.htx?firmaid=51397
Pressemappe via RSS : feed://presseportal.de/rss/pm_51397.rss2

Pressekontakt:
Weitergehende Informationen: San Telmo Energy Corporate
Communications, Tel.: +1-866-880-5670, E-Mail:
corporate@santelmoenergy.com
 

Das höre ich schon seit Tagen. Und was glaubt ihr?
Sind die Anleger eher positiv gestimmt oder eher negativ?

Gruß
HAMSI  

Da bahnt sich was an.... Der Kurs steigt langsam an. Ich vermute,
dass in den nächsten Tagen positive Nachricht kommen wird.

Bleib also drin ...

HAMSI  

Hallo Leute!

also hier die erste positive Nachricht. Wir warten noch
auf die nächste Nachricht...
--------------------------------------------------

CALGARY, Sept. 1 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- San Telmo Energy Ltd. (Nachrichten) (OTCBB: STUOF, TSX-V: STU) is pleased to announce positive results from its fiscal year end April 30, 2005.

The company has increased its cash flow from operations to $1,886,346, as compared to cash out flow in 2004 of $1,073,134. Production volumes increased to 126,425 boe in 2005 from 9,487 boe in 2004.

Sales volumes for the year ended April 30, 2005 averaged 346 boe before royalties per day compared to 26 boe per day in 2004. The 4th quarter averaged 452 boe per day compared to 434 boe per day in the 3rd quarter, 235 boe per day in the 2nd quarter and 269 boe per day for the 1st quarter of 2005. Production volumes were up in the 4th quarter due to the commencement of production in December of two Teepee Creek wells and increased compression facilities on the McLeod gas well, allowing for maximum production which commenced in December.

Business Prospects and Year ended April 30, 2006 Outlook --------------------------------------------------

The Company has, through the successful drilling of wells in the Gordondale and Teepee Creek areas, identified two potential fields. The Company plans to drill wells in these plays to further establish and develop these fields. In addition the Company will continue to drill exploration wells on the prospects it currently owns through farmout arrangements with Rolling Thunder Exploration Ltd.

The Company anticipates spending approximately $6 to $8 million dollars during the year ended April 30, 2006 on oil and gas exploration and development activities, primarily in north western Alberta.
 

08.09.2005 17:50
San Telmo erhöht seinen Landbesitz bei 'Gold Creek'
Calgary, Kanada (ots/PRNewswire) - San Telmo Energy Ltd. (Nachrichten) (OTCBB:
STUOF; TSX-V: STU) freut sich, bekannt geben zu dürfen, dass es
kürzlich eine 50-prozentige Beteiligung an einem zusätzliche Stück
Land bei Gold Creek erworben hat. Damit erhöht sich San Telmos
Landfläche auf 1280 Acre (512 Hektar) im überaus ertragreichen
Seefeld Halfway/Charlie.

Das 'Gold Creek'-Gebiet befindet sich in der 'Peace River
Arch'-Region von Alberta, in der Nähe des kürzlich bei Halfway
entdeckten Gasreservoirs, dessen Tests eine Ergiebigkeit von 5,5
Millionen Kubikfuss pro Tag ergaben. San Telmo hat Anteile an zwei
Abschnitten, die eine halbe Meile von diesem jüngst entdeckten
Vorkommen entfernt liegen. San Telmo und sein Joint Venture-Partner
wollen - je nach Wetter und Lizenzanforderungen -bis Anfang Herbst
eine Quelle zur Erkundung bohren.

Informationen zu San Telmo Energy Ltd

San Telmo Energy Ltd. ist ein junges Öl- und Gasunternehmen mit
einem erfahrenen Management-Team. Es wird durch seine
hundertprozentige Tochterfirma San Telmo Energy Inc. in Calgary,
Alberta, betrieben und konzentriert sich auf die Herstellung,
Erkundung und Erschliessung von Reserven, die dem Unternehmen einen
langfristigen Nutzen bieten.
 

http://media.integratir.com/STUOF/financials/...202005%20MD%26A%2Epdf  

11/1/2005 7:47:13 PM ET News Release Index


Rolling Thunder Exploration Ltd. and San Telmo Energy Ltd. Enter into Arrangement Agreement  
 
Calgary, Alberta November 1, 2005 - Rolling Thunder Exploration Ltd. ("Rolling Thunder") (TSXV Symbol – ROL.A, ROL.B) and San Telmo Energy Ltd. ("San Telmo") (TSXV Symbol – STU; OTCBB Symbol - STUOF) announced today that they have entered into an arrangement agreement dated as of November 1, 2005, pursuant to which they will amalgamate their businesses (the "Transaction") and continue as Rolling Thunder Exploration Ltd. under the leadership of the current Rolling Thunder management team. The Transaction will be completed pursuant to a court approved Plan of Arrangement.
Under the terms of the transaction, Rolling Thunder class A shareholders will receive one class A share of the amalgamated entity for each Rolling Thunder class A share held, Rolling Thunder class B shareholders will receive one class B share of the amalgamated entity for each Rolling Thunder class B share held, and San Telmo shareholders will receive $0.60 per San Telmo share comprised of, at the election of each San Telmo shareholder: (i) 0.5 class A shares of the amalgamated entity for each San Telmo share held; or (ii) $0.60 cash for each San Telmo share held; or (iii) a combination of shares and cash, subject in all cases to maximum aggregate cash consideration of $5,000,000.
Holders of options of Rolling Thunder and holders of options and warrants of San Telmo will also participate in the Plan of Arrangement and will receive replacement options and warrants in the amalgamated entity.
The current management team of Rolling Thunder, led by Peter Bolton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Kamelia Wong, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary, Ken Ellison, Vice President, Exploration and Chief Operating Officer, Jim Tyndall, Vice President, Engineering and Steve Farner, Manager, Geophysics, will remain the same following the Transaction. The Board of Directors of Rolling Thunder also will remain the same, comprised of Keith Macdonald (Chair), Peter Bolton, Brian Bass, Ken Ellison and Ray Smith.
On a pro forma basis, the combined company will have a production base equivalent to San Telmo's current sales of approximately 450 boe/d comprised of 82% natural gas and 18% oil and natural gas liquids. Production levels are expected to increase up to 600 boe/d in early 2006, as additional wells come on-stream. The combined company will also hold





approximately 11,680 gross (9,266 net) acres of undeveloped land, and 2,560 gross (1,920 net) acres under option. Net working capital will be approximately $2,000,000 after deducting estimated deal costs and assuming San Telmo shareholders elect the maximum aggregate cash consideration of $5,000,000. It is expected that the company will have an unused credit line of approximately $5 million along with combined, useable tax pools of about $12 million.
Rolling Thunder and San Telmo are arm's length parties and the Transaction has the unanimous support of the directors of both Rolling Thunder and San Telmo. Both Brian Bass, who is the President and Chief Executive Officer of San Telmo and a director of both Rolling Thunder and San Telmo, and Ken Ellison, who is a consultant of San Telmo and a director of Rolling Thunder, excused themselves from, and did not participate in, any of the deliberations of either board in respect of the Transaction. An independent committee of the board of directors of San Telmo, comprised of William E. Schmidt and Chris Dyakowski, evaluated the Transaction and recommended that the board of San Telmo approve the Transaction. An independent committee of the board of directors of Rolling Thunder, comprised of Messrs. Macdonald and Smith, evaluated the Transaction and recommended that the board of Rolling Thunder approve the Transaction.
Sayer Securities Limited acted as financial advisor to San Telmo and has provided a verbal opinion to San Telmo that the transaction is fair, from a financial point of view, to San Telmo shareholders, and will provide a fairness opinion, subject to review of final documentation. Acumen Capital Finance Partners Limited acted as financial advisor to Rolling Thunder and has provided a verbal opinion to Rolling Thunder that the transaction is fair, from a financial point of view, to Rolling Thunder shareholders, and will provide a fairness opinion, subject to review of final documentation.
Several shareholders of San Telmo (including management and directors) have executed lock-up agreements and have agreed to vote in favour of the Transaction. The board of directors and management of Rolling Thunder have also executed lock-up agreements and have also agreed to vote such shares in favour of the Transaction. The Transaction will require the approval of 66 2/3% of the votes cast by San Telmo's securityholders and Rolling Thunder's securityholders and will be subject to all requisite regulatory approvals and other customary conditions, including approval of the TSX Venture Exchange. Securityholders of San Telmo and Rolling Thunder will be asked to consider the Transaction at special meetings expected to be held in late December.
San Telmo has agreed to pay Rolling Thunder a non-completion fee of $750,000 in certain circumstances and has agreed to terminate any discussions with other parties and not to solicit other proposals. Rolling Thunder has agreed to pay San Telmo a non-completion fee of $300,000 in certain limited circumstances.







For further information, please contact:
Rolling Thunder Exploration Ltd. San Telmo Energy Ltd.
1130, 144 - 4th Avenue S.W. Suite 430, 580 Hornby Street
Calgary, Alberta T2P 3N4 Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 3B6
Peter Bolton, President & CEO William E. Schmidt, Director
Telephone: 403-532-6221
Fax: 403-262-0229 Telephone: 604-687-4456
Fax: 604-687-0586
Completion of the transaction is subject to a number of conditions, including, but not limited to, shareholder approval of the continuance of San Telmo into Alberta, securityholder approval of the Transaction, TSX Venture Exchange acceptance and Court approval. The transaction cannot close until the required approvals are obtained. There can be no assurance that the transaction will be completed as proposed or at all.
Information provided herein contains forward-looking information. The reader is cautioned that assumptions used in the preparation of such information, which are considered reasonable by Rolling Thunder and San Telmo at the time of preparation may prove to be incorrect. Actual results achieved will vary from the information provided and the variations may be material. There is no representation by Rolling Thunder and San Telmo that actual results achieved will be the same in whole or in part as those indicated in the forward-looking statements.


News Release Index







 

 

Was habe ich als Aktionär an Gewinn erreicht?
Der Kurs gibt wieder nach. Sehr merkwürdig.
Na ja Verluste habe ich mit dieser Aktie nicht, aber man hätte
wohl mit anderen besser gestanden, oder?
Mal sehen wie es weiterläuft...
Also zufrieden bin ich noch nicht :-)
HAMSI  

Hallo Hamsi!

Immer noch dabei? Ich auch und hoffe und  hoffe aber werd wohl nichts werden? Oder was glaubst du?
Olda
 

Rolling Thunder und San Telmo

Rolling Thunder Exploration Ltd. ("Rolling Thunder") (TSXV-Symbol
- ROL.A, ROL.B) und San Telmo Energy Ltd. (Nachrichten) ("San Telmo") (TSXV-Symbol
- STU; OTCBB-Symbol - STUOF) gaben heute bekannt, dass die
Unternehmen ein gemeinsames Informationsrundschreiben bezüglich des
zuvor bekannt gegebenen sogen. "Plan of Arrangement" zur Ergreifung
von Umstrukturierungsmassnahmen der Firmen zur Gründung eines neuen
Unternehmens mit dem Namen Rolling Thunder Exploration Ltd. ("Newco")
an ihre Aktien- und Optionsinhaber versandt haben.

Entsprechend der vorübergehenden Verfügung durch den Court of
Queen's Bench of Alberta finden am Dienstag, den 10. Januar 2006
Sondertreffen mit den Aktien- und Optionsinhabern von Rolling Thunder
und San Telmo statt, um den "Plan of Arrangement" sowie verschiedene
andere Angelegenheiten zu besprechen. Sofern alle Bedingungen im
"Plan of Arrangement", einschliesslich aller erforderlichen
Zustimmungen durch die Wertpapierinhaber, Behörden und Gerichte,
erfüllt bzw. erlassen werden, gehen Rolling Thunder und San Telmo
davon aus, dass der "Plan of Arrangement" am 11. Januar 2006 in Kraft
treten wird.

Eine Kopie des Informationsrundschreibens und damit im
Zusammenhang stehender Dokumente wurden an alle Aktien- und
Optionsinhaber von Rolling Thunder und San Telmo gesendet und können
elektronisch unter www.sedar.com auf den Profilen von Rolling Thunder
und San Telmo abgerufen werden. Die Details des "Plan of Arrangement"
sowie die Wahlinformationen sind dem Informationsrundschreiben zu
entnehmen.

DIE TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE HAT DIESE PRESSEMITTEILUNG NICHT GEPRÜFT
UND ÜBERNIMMT KEINE VERANTWORTUNG FÜR DIE ANGEMESSENHEIT ODER
GENAUIGKEIT DIESER PRESSEMITTEILUNG.

ots Originaltext: San Telmo Energy Ltd.
Im Internet recherchierbar: http://www.presseportal.ch

Pressekontakt:
Weitere Informationen: Rolling Thunder Exploration Ltd., Peter
Bolton, President und C.E.O., Telefon: +1-(403)-262-0229, Fax:
+1-(403)-532-6221; San Telmo Energy Ltd., William E. Schmidt,
Director, Telefon: +1-(604)-687-4456, Fax: +1-(604)-687-0586

 

Die San Telmo Energy Ltd. plant eine Fusion in die Rolling Thunder Exploration A0F40B

Für 2 Aktien der San Telmo Energy Ltd. 675088 erhalten Sie 1 Aktie der Rolling Thunder Exploration.

Davon abweichend haben Sie die Möglichkeit für 1 Aktie der San Telmo Energy Ltd. eine Barabfindung in Höhe von CAD 0,60 pro Aktie zu erhalten.

CAD 0,60 entspricht ca. 0,42 Euro? - Schlußkurs am Freitag 0,29 Euro.
 

 

warum sich die Kurse der beiden Aktien nicht an die ca. 0.43€ bzw.
0,84€ angleichen,aber wenigstens untereinander,Telmo ist bei 0,32
und ROL bei 0,64€.Letztere seit Monaten in Deutschland handelbar,
aber noch kein Stück übern Tisch gegangen!!!
Würde auf jeden Fall cash nehmen und dann ROL von der Seitenlinie
beobachten,wenn es von denen mehr Aktien gibt,ist das ja eine
indirekte Kapitalerhöhung/bzw. Verwässerung des Aktienkurses,da
könnte es noch tiefer gehen.
mfg nf
 

Ich moechte euch um Rat bitten, was macht ihr denn nehmt ihr Casch oder
oder die Umwandlung der Aktie?
Noch etwas anderes, weiss mir jemand etwas ueber Rolling Thunder zu sagen? I waere euch dankbar wenn ihr noch heute etwas hoeren laesst denn Morgen muss ich die Entscheidung treffen.
Schoenen Gruss an alle San Telmisten
Olda