Vanoil Announces Independent Resource Estimate and Terminates Non Binding Letter of Intent

- August 9th, 2011

Vanoil Energy Ltd. (CVE:VEL) reports that an independent assessment of the Company’s prospective resources has been completed by Sproule International.

Vanoil Energy Ltd. (TSXV:VEL) reports that an independent assessment of the Company’s prospective resources has been completed by Sproule International.

The press release is quoted as saying:

Based in Vancouver, Canada, Vanoil is an internationally diversified Oil and Gas company that has a comprehensive portfolio of oil and gas assets in the African countries of Kenya and Rwanda, and in the Province of Alberta, Canada.

Click here to access the entire press release

6 responses to “Vanoil Announces Independent Resource Estimate and Terminates Non Binding Letter of Intent

  1. Charlotte- Could you possibly add some background to the rumor you mention in the closing paragraph? Where you heard this rumor or the grounds on which the issue might be reopened? For many PM investors, given what we already understand about fraudulent price movements and even whistleblowers directly testifying to the CFTC providing direct proof of manipulation, all of which was on the table when they chose to close the previous investigation, it would seem unlikely that anything further could possibly lead to action… unless they once again desire the “cover” of being able to justify their complete inaction by claiming “the investigation is ongoing”. Any info you could provide would be much appreciated!

    1. Hi there,

      Thank you for the comment!

      What I’m referring to is a comment made back in September by David Morgan — speaking to Kitco about the closure of the CFTC’s investigation, he said, “[l]egally this is how they have to stand, but if you look at what they said, they said based on the ‘evidence at this time,’ that still opens the door for investigation.”

      Here’s the link to the Kitco article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kitconews/2013/09/25/cftc-silver-investigation-done-findings-not-surprising/

      I’ll adjust the article to be more clear on that point.

      1. Many thanks for the clarification! I have heard vague rumors that the closing of the CFTC case potentially opened up some avenues for civil action by litigants who were now free to use some of the info the CFTC had been sitting on. I asked because it occurred to me this might be a reason the CFTC could reopen the case (to lock this info/whistleblowers out of a civil suit, which would have the uncomfortable potential to bring the CFTC’s inaction on this matter into public view). I have not seen anything concrete about further litigation however, so at this point it remains a rumor.
        Thanks for responding!

  2. Charlotte- Could you possibly add some background to the rumor you mention in the closing paragraph? Where you heard this rumor or the grounds on which the issue might be reopened? For many PM investors, given what we already understand about fraudulent price movements and even whistleblowers directly testifying to the CFTC providing direct proof of manipulation, all of which was on the table when they chose to close the previous investigation, it would seem unlikely that anything further could possibly lead to action… unless they once again desire the “cover” of being able to justify their complete inaction by claiming “the investigation is ongoing”. Any info you could provide would be much appreciated!

    1. Hi there,

      Thank you for the comment!

      What I’m referring to is a comment made back in September by David Morgan — speaking to Kitco about the closure of the CFTC’s investigation, he said, “[l]egally this is how they have to stand, but if you look at what they said, they said based on the ‘evidence at this time,’ that still opens the door for investigation.”

      Here’s the link to the Kitco article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kitconews/2013/09/25/cftc-silver-investigation-done-findings-not-surprising/

      I’ll adjust the article to be more clear on that point.

      1. Many thanks for the clarification! I have heard vague rumors that the closing of the CFTC case potentially opened up some avenues for civil action by litigants who were now free to use some of the info the CFTC had been sitting on. I asked because it occurred to me this might be a reason the CFTC could reopen the case (to lock this info/whistleblowers out of a civil suit, which would have the uncomfortable potential to bring the CFTC’s inaction on this matter into public view). I have not seen anything concrete about further litigation however, so at this point it remains a rumor.
        Thanks for responding!

Leave a Reply