| Numatex Inc |
| Numatex Inc. Oil Drilling and Exploration Florissant, Missouri |
| 20th of Apr, 2011 by User312514 |
| Need to find out if there are others who have made an investment with Thomas Wiley of Numatex, to learn if they too have not received promised returns. Were you promised a full refund if you requested one? Do your calls go unanswered or returned? Is this a reputable company or a fraud? In the beginning they sent checks as a return on the investment regularly. They asked for an additional investment a couple of years later to increase 'financial security in the future' and based on past returns this was done. Now, no checks or responses to phone calls. I'm beginning to think this was or is a SCAM and need to know if there are others who have experience with Numatex Inc. How do I find a list of shareholders? Any information on this company would be appreciated. |
|
|
|
|
This is Thomas J. Wiley, Sr. After more than a year of seeing complaints on this site from George D. Klein and "Jackie J." and now Katrina Hornstein, it is time now for me to respond. It is unfortunate that the Internet can be a public forum for lies and half-truths, for which libel case law is rapidly being established. In the meantime, false accusations and mean-spirited language can do their intended damage, as is possibly now the case, so it is time to go on the record.
George D. Klein is well-known by many in the oil and gas industry and was for 23 years professor of geology at the University of Illinois and chair of the department. From my website "THE MOST IMPORTANT ENERGY DISCOVERY SINCE E=MC², " posted in 1997 looking for help, Dr. Klein contacted me, visited me at my expense in Florissant, MO, went to the field with me, became privy to our developing technology, and for my handsome offer, endorsed our science in view of patenting. He signed a lengthy endorsement agreement, and at no time has he ever questioned the basis of our science.
In 1998, when I was purchasing geological material from the Illinois Geological Survey, I mentioned with some pride that "Dr. George D. Klein is on our board of directors." Without any hesitation or prompting, the person on the other end said, "George Klein is one of the best sedimentologists in the world, but he will make trouble." I filed that information in the back of my mind, but never experienced difficulties with him until 2008. In 1998, as we were launching our stock program under Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933 and '34, Dr. Klein sent us a list of ten prominent people in the oil and gas industry as potential investors, and said, "When you contact these people, don't tell them I have given you their names, because they don't like me, and if they know I have given you their names, they won't invest." On the basis of that comment and his legacy at the University of Illinois, Dr. Klein's demeanor has apparently been well-established before we met him. His endorsement included cash and stock. His Internet statement as to Numatex "not being a typical oil and gas company or an R & D company" have to be taken in light of Dr. Klein's involvement and witness to eleven oil wells Numatex drilled in Webster County, KY, in 2005 and 2006.
He knows one of them came in as the biggest well in the State of Kentucky (the Commonwealth they call it down there). We have his picture with wife Su Yon standing beside the well as oil is flowing through the pipes - oil that flowed for 161 days without a pumpjack. Is that typical? George Klein knows those eleven wells have produced over 75, 000 barrels of oil since 2005.
Is that a"typical" oil and gas company? Did he bother to say that all the expenses of operating those wells falls to the Company and not its stockholders? Has he ever received a bill for any repairs or replacements of equipment, any water hauling bills, any tax or insurance bills, any administrative bills? Was he not one of the stockholders who have received over $1 million in royalties since 2005 from oil production? George Klein knows 100% that each of those wells was staked using technology we were working to patent, and that each of those eleven wells was part of the proving and improving of our technology.
He and every other stockholder received every single prediction of each of the zones we intended to drill, and the outcomes based on logs and our local geologist's reports. Is that "typical R & D" or not? The fact all the information we gathered from those wells was intended to be and has succeeded in providing scientific validity to our patent application of Jan. 31, 2012, begs the question, " Is that typical R & D or not?" Does not "typical R & D" require high levels of secrecy when working toward one of the most important patent applications ever to be made?
When George Klein publishes the statement that in 2005 I called him asking to "repurchase" his stock, it is a total lie. I have NEVER called him asking to "repurchase" his stock. In 2005 he converted the remainder of our endorsement cash obligations stemming from his 1997 contract to stock, because based on our drilling successes, Numatex had WITHOUT ANY PRIOR OFFERS OR COMMITMENTS, instituted a royalty program from our sale of oil, which eventually grew to 37½% of our Net Revenue.
George Klein and his wife became beneficiaries of that royalty program to the tune of $34, 674.66, based on a $30, 000 contract conversion to stock, from 2005 through 2009 OVER AND ABOVE his original contract agreement. IS THAT A RIP-OFF? Why would Numatex call him asking to "repurchase" stock at the same time he makes his conversion? His statements that we offered to buy back any stockholder's stock at shareholder meetings is also totally false. Can anyone back that up?
This Company's position as to "repurchase" of stock and/or liquidation of stock is clearly stated in our Prospectus, which George Klein calls "dumb, " even though the whole program was determined by Congress to enable small businesses to raise money apart from the publicly traded stock market and without overbearing oversight by the SEC. That's "dumb?" As a member of the board, George Klein was obligated to understand the law.
In 2008 our price for oil dropped from $135 per barrel in July to $27.50 in February 2009. We, like every other oil company, large and small, lost 80% of our income. As the stock market was crashing, George Klein called me and said he "wanted to cash in his stock." He wasn't the only one. We had others, so we had to take pause. UNDER FEDERAL LAW GOVERNING THE REGULATION D PROGRAM, NO COMPANY CAN BE FORCED TO REDEEM ITS STOCK! On that basis we asked stockholders to tell us their needs.
George said he had "roof damage from Hurricane Ike." We had one stockholder who lost his job and others with medical needs. We made a list based on our legal rights, peoples' needs, our ability to help, and we did what we could. George Klein sent me a letter, DEMANDING TO KNOW WHY HE WAS NOT AT THE TOP OF THAT LIST! AND HE DEMANDED A CERTAIN PRICE! First and foremost, George Klein's stock was RESTRICTED STOCK, like mine, which means neither he nor I could cash in our stock ahead of anyone else without a public market.
Any securities attorney reading this note should be able to explain that to anyone who doesn't understand Regulation D programs. Second, the arrogance of George's demands were such that he went to the BOTTOM of the list. He bombarded me with his demands for two years, and as he said, complained to the Missouri Div. of Securities, also the Kentucky Div. of Securities, and the St. Louis Better Business Bureau. Missouri had already investigated Numatex's stock program in 2005 & '06, contacting all our Missouri stockholders, and found NO COMPLAINTS OR VIOLATIONS.
Klein's complaint (as a Texas resident) to KY was without jurisdiction, The St. Louis Better Business Bureau investigated and found no fault with Numatex. We have a B+ rating there, based on lack of business activity in Missouri or St. Louis. Missouri told George Klein they weren't interested in his complaints. They already knew about us. With all his demands, evasions of fact, and accusations of "theft, " we have NEVER received a letter from an attorney representing George Klein, even though he claims to have consulted one.
Finally, in a fit of pique, he sent me a letter in 2010 SUSPENDING HIS ENDORSEMENT, which suspension was NOT based on any kind of scientific flaws or malpractice. He told us to "white out" or "cut out" his name from our Prospectus. "Because of all the arrogant trouble he had caused, we accepted his SUSPENSION as a breach of contract, canceled his stock, and have demanded all the money back he has been paid toward the 1997 endorsement and all the money he earned from oil, based on his stock conversion from the endorsement, now amounting to $134, 747.10 PLUS my time and damages.
He claims we owe him over $110, 000 with no basis for his figures. He says he doesn't have the money to file a legal claim, so what has he done? He has gone to the Internet to smear our name and has been trolling the Internet looking for someone with whom to share his venom. Without further comment, anyone wishing to know the REAL George Klein should call the University of Illinois or the Illinois Geological Survey - or talk to the ten prominent oil clients who "don't like him."
Now, let's direct our response to "Jackie J." and Katrina Hornstein. First, neither of those two ladies has ever invested one thin dime into Numatex. They have never met me or my wife, have never called us on the phone, nor have they ever mailed us a letter. I question whether or not they have ever seen our Prospectus and Business Plan, and if they have, there is a very good chance a Confidentiality Agreement has been mortally violated. Anyone reading their "complaints" can see they are both almost word for word alike, so they are obviously on a mission.
To be fair, they are trying to speak for an elderly lady. What they do not say is that the lady has many of her facts very much incorrect. She has called us many times and has never been turned away. She knows full well our cell phone numbers and has talked with us in various locations of the United States wherever we happen to be. Her nephew has also spoken with us by cell phone, and they have both visited our oil production in Kentucky.
She has received every monthly report of the Company's oil production, and has received every single quarterly royalty check to which she has been entitled. She is in fact one of those people we put at the top of our list in 2008 when the stock market was crashing along with the price of oil, to where when we temporarily fell behind in quarterly royalty payments, based on the market's collapse, we made sure this lady got her money.
This lady also complained to the St. Louis Better Business Bureau with the statement, "I am concerned about the future of the company" - not that the company had "ripped her off" or made any false or misleading statements or had taken any of her money under false pretenses. The St. Louis BBB investigated her complaints, and we cooperated 100%. The fact is, the lady told the BBB she had "over $40, 000 with the company, " when she only invested $12, 000, PLUS we GAVE HER 2, 000 shares as a bonus - totally without strings attached, all for which she is receiving the Company's generous royalty pay-outs from our sale of oil, which in her case has accumulated to $8, 238.56 through March 2012, and her upcoming quarterly check is $190.69, out of which she pays none of the Company's expenses. It's royalty - not working interest. The fact also is we met with her and her nephew PERSONALLY, making sure she knew exactly what she was doing, and actually turned her down when she wanted to invest more. We made that decision based on her age and what we perceived as future medical needs, and we were right.
Every time she talks with us on the phone, she thanks us for "what we have done for her." The fact is, she has NEVER called us asking to redeem her stock, nor has she EVER written us asking us to do so. She misplaces her mail, and when she made her original investment in 2005, she made it for her heirs, saying she had plenty of money. So why has she misstated the facts to the BBB? Why have we NEVER received a letter from her attorney, whom we know she consults for every issue.
And who are "Jackie J. and/or Katrina Hornstein?" Do you two ladies realize you have severely smeared someone on the Internet without knowing or checking any of your facts? Do you realize you could both lose everything you have in a libel suit? What are your addresses so we can contact you? Why haven't either of you contacted us? Where is this lady's nephew in all this? Why hasn't this elderly lady cooperated with us pertaining to important paperwork pertaining to her heirs?
Wrapping all this up, my wife and I have been dealing with the public for 35 years, and many of our Numatex stockholders have been with us for 14 years. They invested in a potential major patent, which George Klein endorsed and the elderly lady also bought into. Our Prospectus and Business Plan were written in 1998, and every word has come true with minor variations, but every intent has been demonstrated, oil revenues have been generated over and above anyone's expectations, and our patent has been filed. Anyone considering Numatex and/or Thomas J. Wiley, Sr, need to know the facts - and the errors. |
|
|
|
Mr. Wiley’s statement contains numerous errors in fact and omissions. I’ll summarize a few below and in effort to keep it short (difficult to do under the circumstances).
First, although I served as a Professor of Geology for 21 of the 23.5 years I was on the faculty there. I never served as “chair of the department.” Nor is this stated in my resume, Curricula Vita, or descriptions for public presentations. Where Mr. Wiley got that information is an unknown. Whether it is his misperceived embellishment is unknown.
By way of background, Mr. Wiley earned a degree in Theology for a Michigan college that is no longer in existence, served as minister of a church in Florissant, MO. He still has a minister’s license in Missouri. Wiley then worked as a security guard at McDonald-Douglas, before forming his own business selling autographs of renowned sports figures. He got into the oil business after a bad investment and learned as much as he could about it. He learned a great deal about the operational side. This history was provided to me by Mr. Wiley.
Prior to 1997 when I first met him, he made a discovery that has the potential of finding oil in the subsurface. He then contacted by email numerous geologists who are members of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), including me. Having just started a consulting business, I
called him and eventually I executed a confidentiality agreement with him and he demonstrated the prototype of his technology. I admit being underwhelmed, but because he flew me to St. Louis in good faith, I felt he was entitled to my best possible evaluation, so I designed some tests and they provided the POTENTIAL of his discovery warranting further Research and Development.
Mr. Wiley then proposed an endorsement agreement and this was executed and I suggested compensation partly in stock and partly in cash for my wife, me and my consulting corporation. I also served as a member of the Board of Directors of NUMATEX until 2007.
Now some specifics:
1). The comment from an unnamed person at the Illinois Geological Survey might have come from a disgruntled former student.
2). My “demeanor” was well established comment. For more details, any interested party can
read my memoirs (G.D. Klein, 2009, “ROCKNOCKER: A geologist’s Memoir, ” ccb Publishing.
3). Comment about “NUMATEX not being a typical oil company.” Since responding to posts by
‘JackieJ, ’ I have received unsolicited phone calls and emails from several stockholder, or people claiming to be stockholders. Clearly some of these people likely were surrogates for Mr. Wiley. One told me he arranged sports autographs for Mr. Wiley’s company. Another told me his
daughter was married to one of Mr. Wiley’s cousins. So, clearly, Mr. Wiley is publishing hearsay because he never heard this from me.
Nevertheless, here is a list of concerns:
a). Normally, a small independent oil company husbands its financial resources and uses proceeds from production to turn around and drill at least 10 producing wells. Only after a steady cash flow
accrues will such accompany spend money on its own equipments, buildings, drilling rigs, vehicles, etc.
b) NUMATEX appears not to have done so. After drilling five successful wells in a row
in 2005, and perhaps as many as three out of eight in 2006, NUMATEX bought a
working shallow drill rig, and an abandoned deeper-capability drill rig which,
after purchase without proper inspection, would cost $70, 000 to repair. The rig
was later bartered to drill another well that had limited success. Allegations have been made to me based on a rumor attributed ultimately to Mrs. Wiley, that NUMATEX bought a farm in
Kentucky as a base for NUMATEX’s operation (most of the land was sold to the
neighboring farmer, cutting costs). In addition, during Stockholder meetings in 2005 and 2006, NUMATEX underwrote the costs for barbecue meals not only for stockholders, but also for the entire
town of Poole, KY (population 500 people), as well as entertainment.
c.). NUMATEX production of 75, 000 barrels. On what is this based? Sales? Because Mr.
Wiley’s methodology is new, NUMATEX’s reserves in the ground cannot be
estimated because SEC reserve reporting and evaluation requirements do not
apply to NUMATEX’s technology. I wrote Mr. Wiley accordingly when these rules were updated.
d). In his post, Mr. Wiley failed to disclose that using his technology, there were failures including wells drilled with shows (no commerciality) and dry holes.
e). The business model NUMATEX uses in its dealings with stockholders became unclear.
In some ways, it APPEARED similar to a church, and in some ways it doesn’t.
4). During the stockholder’s meetings in 2005 and 2006, Mr. Wiley publicly offered to buy back any and all shares owned (I can provide the name of one stockholder who reminded me of this if asked). He did, in fact, telephone me in July, 2005, and offered to buy my stocks back. I possess telephone records for confirmation.
5). I never used the word "dumb” regarding the NUMATEX prospectus. That’s a figment of Mr. Wiley’s imagination.
6). My request in 2008 to buy my stock back was based on damage to my home during Hurricane Ike. Not disclosed by Mr. Wiley was a second reason. I was about to undergo hip replacement/revision surgery which meant I could not work for six months. Mr. Wiley ignored that critical piece of information.
7). The statement about requesting to be put at the top of the list is incorrect. When Mr. Wiley offered buybacks for “the most needy” in a newsletter in September, 2008, I emailed him asking to be put on the list. I then discovered that the requests were to be made by mail. So, I wrote Wiley, and asked if the request could be dated to the date I sent the earlier request by
email.
8). The price of stock I quoted was based on the last statement by Wiley in a newsletter of the value of the stock. No correction was issued by Wiley.
9). It should be stated for the record that I placed numerous telephone calls to Mr. Wiley in 2008 and 2009 that were neither picked up, nor were calls returned when messages were left. I also sent emails and certified letters and did not receive replies (a common complaint from stockholders who called me). Mr. Wiley admitted in a letter sent early in 2010 that he left my letter unopened for four months before reading it.
10). Endorsement suspension. Yes, I suspended my endorsement. There was NOTHING in our
agreement to prevent it, nor did it require a scientific basis for suspension (an ex post facto requirement of Wiley’s). His response of a “branch of contract” is his own INTERPRETATION.
11). Those ‘ten prominent clients” who “don’t like him.” People who do business d because there is a MUTUAL BENEFIT to the business relationship. There is no requirement to ‘like each
other’ if both benefit. I have reason to doubt Wiley contacted that many of my current and former clients.
PENULTIMATE COMMENT: t is possible that likely, Mr. Wiley and NUMATEX breached their contract with me when they responded to my notice of suspension.
In closing, the comments posted by Mr. Wiley are doing more damage to NUMATEX’s
standing in the business world than anything I have written or said. |
|
|
|
Mr. Wiley in his post stated “…one of them came in as the biggest well in the State of Kentucky (the Commonwealth they call it down there).”
That MAY not be correct. I contacted an individual in the Kentucky Geological Survey about this and he wrote:
“The highest oil IP in Kentucky I know of is an estimated 400 barrels per hour for a well in Clinton County (http://kgs.uky.edu/kgsweb/DataSearching/OilGas/OGresults.asp?farmname=&limiter=AND&opername=&wellnum=9372&yearlmt=equal&month1=&day1=&year1=&month2=&day2=&year2=&permit_yearlmt=equal&permit_month1=&permit_day1=&permit_year1=&permit_month2=&permit_day2=&permit_year2=&elog_month1=&elog_day1=&elog_year1=&elog=nolimit&devtype=nolimit&well_depth_val=&well_depth=none&srchType=oil&areatype=all). It was in an Ordovician fractured reservoir and related to hydrothermal dolomitization. The well produced an estimated 130, 000 barrels of oil in 18 months and was abandoned when it began producing gas only.
In Hopkins County, western Kentucky, the first 4 wells in the Hanson pool produced a combined 3, 000 barrels of oil per day. There could have been wells in the Birk City pool that exceeded that rate. But I have to look it up.
The highest natural gas initial open flow developed was 52 million a day from a Bell County, eastern Kentucky, well in the Mississippian Greenbrier/Newman carbonates ("Big Lime").
Historically, there are accounts that may indicate high IPs, like the account of the 1829 Great American Well near Burkesville in Cumberland County. These accounts, however, are not quantitative. The Great American Well was described as a gusher with a fountain of oil higher than the treetops.”
None of the wells in Webster County, KY, are mentioned. |
|
|
|
Mr. Wiley in his post stated “…one of them came in as the biggest well in the State of Kentucky (the Commonwealth they call it down there).”
That MAY not be correct. I contacted an individual in the Kentucky Geological Survey about this and he wrote:
“The highest oil IP in Kentucky I know of is an estimated 400 barrels per hour for a well in Clinton County (http://kgs.uky.edu/kgsweb/DataSearching/OilGas/OGresults.asp?farmname=&limiter=AND&opername=&wellnum=9372&yearlmt=equal&month1=&day1=&year1=&month2=&day2=&year2=&permit_yearlmt=equal&permit_month1=&permit_day1=&permit_year1=&permit_month2=&permit_day2=&permit_year2=&elog_month1=&elog_day1=&elog_year1=&elog=nolimit&devtype=nolimit&well_depth_val=&well_depth=none&srchType=oil&areatype=all). It was in an Ordovician fractured reservoir and related to hydrothermal dolomitization. The well produced an estimated 130, 000 barrels of oil in 18 months and was abandoned when it began producing gas only.
In Hopkins County, western Kentucky, the first 4 wells in the Hanson pool produced a combined 3, 000 barrels of oil per day. There could have been wells in the Birk City pool that exceeded that rate. But I have to look it up.
The highest natural gas initial open flow developed was 52 million a day from a Bell County, eastern Kentucky, well in the Mississippian Greenbrier/Newman carbonates ("Big Lime").
Historically, there are accounts that may indicate high IPs, like the account of the 1829 Great American Well near Burkesville in Cumberland County. These accounts, however, are not quantitative. The Great American Well was described as a gusher with a fountain of oil higher than the treetops.”
None of the wells in Webster County, KY, are mentioned. |
|
|
|
I have noticed the same two people posting the same thing on several websites that appear to be on a personal vendetta of some type against Numatex and the Wiley's.
How immature and childish.
Look up the word 'investment'; if you can't afford to lose it, don't risk it.
I have received checks from oil sold from Numatex leases; I was told the drilling was to perfect a new technology to find oil. There have been no lies or subterfuge from the company or the owners.
Grow up and get out of the kiddie pool
It also appears to me that, having severed your relationship to Numatex, you suddenly want back in.
Interesting. |
|
|
|
No siree!! If Mr. Wiley had lived to his promises that he stated publicly in stockholder meetings, this issue would never have appeared on this blog post thread!! I'm only interested in receiving what was promised, despite subsequent denials by Mr. Wiley.
If Mr. Wiley would spend more time on moving NUMATEX forward as promised in his 'press conference video' instead of continuing these posts, the company might be better served.
Last, in another one of these informer blogs, one poster who identified him/herself as a stockholder stated that Mr. Wiley emailed stock holders to enter these blogs and post "..good feedback.'' about him.
Thus, Mr. 1951USA, you are only serving as a surrogate and your commentary is unworthy of further remarks from me. |
|
|
|
| Klein, you're a crybaby. Either use the legal system if you think you have a claim or shut the heck up. |
|
|
|
TO:
Matthew22, If you would underwrite legal action from beginning to end, I'd consider it. That would also include travel costs, etc, etc. |
|
|
|
Added comment for MATTHEW22:
You were aware, weren't you, that during 2009, Mr. Wiley filed three (3) lawsuits against various people in Kentucky (according to a letter he wrote me dated January 14 - February 11, 2010), including one of the most prominent landowners in the are where NUMATEX has production. I understand from a reliable source he lost one of them. Don't know about the other two.
Was this good use of your stockholder investment? |
|
|
|
Although I have no particular desire to prolong this discussion, followers of this blog are notified herein that in Mid-July, 2012, Mr. Thomas J. Wiley, Sr, sent a letter to a third party (with a copy to me) alleging that the Norvell #5 well had the second highest Initial Production Rate (IP) in the ENTIRE Illinois basin. Wiley reported in that letter an IP of 3, 000 BPOD (Barrels of oil per day) for the Norvell #5 well.
According to data received from the Illinois Geological Survey, here is a list of the three wells with the highest INITIAL PRODUCTION RATES in the state of Illinois portion of the Illinois basin:
API #120270102000. W.C. McBride, Inc. Ed Carson #9. 660’NL 330’ EL SE 35-2N-1W Centralia Oil Field. Completed 5/29/1940. Pay Zones: Louisiana Lime at 2770’ depth; Devonian Limestone at 2856’ depth. TD 2912’. IP:15, 060 BOPD.
API #120270263800. Adams Oil and Gas Company Edward Copple #17-D. 660’NL 990’EL NW SE 35-2N-1W. Centralia Oil Field. Completed 6/8/1940. Pay Zone: Devonian Lime at 2888’ depth. TD 2898’. IP: 12, 000 BOPD
API #120270102400. Gulf Refining Company Willard Felton #5. 663’SL 330’WL 35-2N-1W. Centralia Oil Field. Completed 6/1/1940. Pay Zone: Devonian Lime at 2894’ depth. TD 2905’. IP: 11, 820 BOPD
These numbers speak for themselves and require no further comment from me at this time. |
|
|
Post your Comment
|
|
|
