"A wall has been put up in order to stop SP from rising..There's a 148K and a 100k bid just sitting at .83 ( Monday and yesterday the same bid was at .81) which is why we couldn't keep the momentum going past .87. SOMEONE seems determined to keep SP down.. Those huge orders stop people from buying as they know that unless the order at .83 is filled , raised or canceled, eventually SP will be .83" stated by Rebels 1 on July 15th.

I believe that there is a great deal of truth to your statement and that this has been going on since June. One or two institutional buyers bought Cll shares for .90 Cdn cents or less and then they offered them for sale in huge blocks so that they can control the price and buy up millions and millions of shares on the cheap. With many shares available from the new issue and some disgruntled retails cashing out their Connacher shares, Fidelity and other institutional buyers are winning the buy low sell high game.

In terms of Petrolifera, I think many on this board are angry as they cashed in their CLL shares at a loss after having held them for years, and bought Petrolifera shares thinking that Petrolifera would repeat its past history of a rapid share price rise as happened after PDP did its original IPO 4 years ago. What they forget is that you cannot buy shares in any company assuming that it will reach its old highs other wise everyone would be buying OPTI shares for example. The times have changed and many junior oil and gas companies are having a very hard time adjusting to the change in the playing field that exists now.

Also, when Connacher purchased the original Argentinian assets in the Neuquen Basin, the Puesto Morales Sur oilfield had already been discovered by YPF (the former state oil company) which had worked this field as had other oil companies previously before Petrolifera acquired the bloc. Petrolifera shot new seizmic and acquired the drilling rights to other formations to drill on the bloc. So the bloc had already been explored and was already productive. Petrolifera had great initial success exploring the Quintuco formation and producing a lot of oil at the beginning but ran into trouble after a couple of years as a number of the wells had to be put on artificial lift. Also, a waterflood project had to be initiated on the Puesto Morales Norte field as it is an old field and it is rapidly depleting. http://www.petrolifera.ca/documents/fin/PDP-2005-AR.pdf So it is presently costing Petrolifera more money to produce oil from rapidly depleting oil fields. This was known to all prospective buyers already, and with the present economic climate Petrolifera's management should have foreseen that nobody would meet their asking price. Look at the market for buyouts this year as Petro Andina was also offered no where near what they wanted and UTS wanted more then Total would pay. Petrolifera will have to keep its land in Argentina and find new formations on their fields there and find ways to reduce their costs. They must also lobby the Argentinian government with others to get the government to change the current cap that it has on oil prices. I'm glad that Petrolifera in a way is keeping this property as it is the only production that Petrolifera has and it pays the bills. Much like Connacher still owns Battrum, which is a depleting oilfield in Saskatchewan but it pays the bills and contributes to Connacher's cash flow. Connacher most likely hasn't sold Battrum due to lack of interest by others in buying it.

In terms of the La Pinta well it is on an oil field discovered in 1975 by Chevron. Chevron drilled the Guamito 1 well but according to Petrolifera's website, Chevron could not do a production test on it because there was no way to transport the produced oil?http://www.petrolifera.ca/operations/colombia.html In 1983, " Ecopetrol attempted a production test but casing problems resulted in the well being P&A'd". (plugged & abandoned). That Petrolifera's tests on the La Pinta well right now is encountering similar problems should not come as a surprize . Unlike it's previously developed known oil fields in Argentina that Pertrolifera was able to acquire rights to drill new oil bearing formations on, Petrolifera's exploration in Columbia is to locate a new oil field. Yes a few wells were previously drilled on the Sierra Nevada property in Columbia but these wells were problematic and difficult to drill for various reasons. Petrolifera's capital program was to drill La Pinta 1 this year and if it was successful to drill a second well at La Pinta 2 however this is most likely in doubt now. Petrolifera share holder's need to remember that normally the rate for drilling successful wells is 30% (one out of 3 attempted). Shareholders of Petrolifera have been lulled into a false sense of security with Petrolifera's original drilling successes in Argentina as many wells were successfully drilled in a row on a known oil field, over a year with no dry wells. Columbia and Peru will not be like this as they require high risk to discover new fields. Drilling in Columbia and Peru is high risk with high expenses and Petrolifera will need partners from here on in to farmin to assume most of the cost. Caveat Emptor. Let the buyer beware. Do your D & D. Be prepared to accept your losses and reap your rewards.

Best Wishes; Scott