good day to all

IF share holders want fair value in share price they must vote NO.

it might help to know that not all directors were in favour of even having this idea of a "split" be brought forward right now ...and certainly not all directors would like to see a "split" for SPQ (fellow poster STORM, i make this point thinking of your concerns as posted, hope it helps you)

THE IDEA OF A "SPLIT" theoretically has advantages ...but it depends on the security and on the circumstances.

"splits" are often welcome with mid and especially large cap securities.

"splits" are generally received negatively with "juniors" ...often times in these cases a "split" is associated with real weakness and as a last resort ....

BUT SPQ IS NOT WEAK

we have CASH ...we have great prospects ...and we can raise money easily...

a quote from Neil Novak: "i can pick up the phone and have another 6 million"

(....why such confidence from investment banking? ... becasue of the growing ROF and our great position therein.)

A REASON FOR SOME DIRECTORS TO WANT A SPIT IS DAYTRADING

...i have talked to brian wilson about this years ago ...and greg robinson through messaging.

we know some of these traders personally... and would love to eliminate the practise of buying a million shares and then selling them for a penny spread.

BUT wait a minute: a split will not solve this problem!

NOT has a been infested with these day traders (and bashers) as well ...their recent decline is due in part to quick trading ...shorts ect...

CONCLUSION: i beleive some directors may be taking it too personal.

out of their desire to disrupt the day traders, they have lost the following objectivity:

our share price went from 14.5 to 10.5 directly due to market sentiment ...over 2 months. (not daytrading)

then our share price fell another 40 % (10.5 to 6.5) because of the "reverse split" being suggested by some directors (not daytraders)

and this happened over only 2 weeks. (including that time when 'rumors' of the split started.)

....i personally beleive from Neils sentiment, that it was a 3 to 4 split desicion ...but i do not know for sure ... NEIL certainly asserted that it was NOT welcome by all directors ...unfortunately it passed.

i beleive those directors who brought this forward should be identified (LADY LUCK: I beleive you were asking about this ...great question !! ) further to this: then we, as shareholders, can contemplate if they should be voted off the board.

i have been an investor of SPQ as early as 1994 (i think it was) ...and i understand the politics well ....it was complete lunacy to have this brought forward at this time ...actully, in my opinion, at ANY time ...but especially at this time

...WE HAVE CASH

...we can get more cash too

...the day traders and bashers go together and they were loosing over the past months ..they were not prevalent

...but they CERTAINLY ARE NOW ...and have facilitated a 40% fall over the last two weeks thanks to those directors who brought this forward.

...and, if this "split" motion goes through, we will possibly go further down ...maybe three cents ..we have been there before...

investors just won't want to buy even on good news ...because there will be this "split" hanging over us .... they have until dec 31 to execute and even after that execution how long does it take to come in affect... 6 months ??

if this "split" is passed it will completly destroy what would have been a great summer and fall drilling program ...oh yes, i am confident the drill results will be great as they have been for the past ten years, but our share price will not reflect the added value.

we all know ... directors are human and they make mistakes...

its a matter of being "objective" rather than "subjective" and letting personal feelings come into play. (this happens with directors even in companies like general electric ...it happens with CEO'S who are paid millions in salary ...humans no matter how "elevated" make serious mistakes)

if we defeat this RS, our price will reconstitute immediately !

VOTE NO !

cheers ....danny

(i hope spell check can be implimented on agoracom :)