Happy Anniversary to US Oil sands and USO Utah bankrupt 2 years ago today.

We held a party this morning with a new banner, some music and announcements about the bankruptcy of USOS in 2017.

Now called USO Utah, the inactive mine site and factory has reduced it’s leasehold considerably. Having cleared the bankruptcy courts and restructured USO Utah has been given a clean bill of credit and is polishing the useless factory to feed the real golden goose: foolish investors, creditors and the tax payers of Utah!  

We arrived early to greet workers and let them know about the anniversary and the scam.

Here is a list of creditors who got screwed in 2017.

USO Utah is seeking investors

Do Not Be Fooled USO Utah is a SCAM!

 

 

 

 

Change SITLA

SITLA is destroying Utah’s pristine wilderness and providing a paltry 2% of the yearly budget. 

Utah spends $4.02 billion dollars per year on k thru 12 public education.

Source. https://ballotpedia.org/Public_education_in_Utah

In 2019 $82.66 million in (SITLA) school land trust funds distributed throughout schools in Utah this year.

Source: https://www.standard.net/news/education/utah-parents-encouraged-to-join-school-community-councils-influence-how/article_b5b4f319-baaf-54a7-85b9-7822908e82c2.html

These numbers and math show SITLA provides 2% ( 0.02056196479 ) of public school funds.  

I won’t expound on the wrongful damage SITLA does to the potential for a livible future for the schoolchildren in Utah … that is well documented elsewhere … see for ex. www.tarsandsresist.org
 

SITLA is very controversial for producing just 2%! 

How do they do it?  SITLA (and I mean our governor Dirty Herrbert and the Legislature) hypes the puny SITLA 2% by requiring school parents to be elected to local councils for 2 year terms to decide how to spend the 2% within strict brackets. (See story above)

A bureaucracy has been created just to serve these councils. 

The councils themselves become vested in the SITLA 2%. 

All this convolution is in service to perpetuating SITLA, the nefarious enterprise overseen by Dirty Herbert’s hand picked board. 

Let’s all support the students who are working to CHANGE SITLA.

Regards,

~Lionel for Utah Tar Sands Resistance

USOS (a tarsand stripmine) is spreading dangerous synthetic vitreous fibers on School Trust Lands at PR Springs, Utah.

Notice of Uncontrolled Air and Water Pollution in Uintah County, Utah and  Complaint made by UTSR.

       Please take notice and immediate corrective action regarding the Synthetic Vitreous Fibers (Fiberglass) being dispersed without control into the air and subsequently deposited onto the lands and into the waters of the Uncompahgre reservation in Uintah County, Utah.


  The source of the fiberglass is the deteriorating exterior insulation on a water tank serving the tar sand strip mine Police Substation of Agent Ronald C. Barton, Utah Attorney General’s Office, for SITLA, located adjacent to the USOS stripmine and factory on Seep Ridge Road, in Uintah County, Utah.

BACKGROUND:

The tank and uncontrolled dispersing fiberglass is apparently owned by USO (Utah) LLC, a private Delaware corporation based in Canada.

The tank is or was used in a bonded mine plan, M0470090, which was approved by Utah Division of Oil, Gas & Mining.

The tank is on land leased to USO (Utah) LLC., by the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), and is located in Uintah County immediately west of Seep Ridge Road, just south of mile marker one.

  The US Government granted the impacted lands to the Uncompahgre Utes on January 5, 1882 by an executive order of President Chester A. Arthur, later the US Government took control of the land from the Ute Tribe through the allotment process. The Uncompahgre reservation boundaries were not diminished and the Ute nation retains jurisdiction on the subject lands.

SITLA subsequently obtained title to these lands in trade with the US Government.

The USO tarsand stripmine went into bankruptcy a couple years ago and the place shuttered up. Recently some activity is occurring. Photos of the deteriorating water tank at the tarsand stripmine show fiberglass entering the environment in large pieces and small and show the water tank’s connection to Attorney General’s Police Substation. A sample of the fiberglass has been collected as indicated.

The Photos are linked HERE: 

All of these photos accurately depict the conditions at this site in July 2019

The photos indicate recent activity at the USO stripmine factory site where a gas powered electric generator was placed on and near the water tank dispersing fiberglass in mid July 2019.

How can fiberglass affect my health?

Larger fibers have been found to cause skin, eye and upper respiratory tract irritation. There are other possible health effects:

A rash can appear when the fibers become embedded in the outer layer of the skin. No long-term health effects should occur from touching fiberglass. Eyes may become red and irritated after exposure to fiberglass. Soreness in the nose and throat can result when fibers are inhaled. Asthma and bronchitis can be aggravated by exposure to fiberglass. Temporary stomach irritation may occur if fibers are swallowed. 

SOURCE: http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/factsheets/fiberglass.htm

What happens to synthetic vitreous fibers when they enter the environment? 

Synthetic vitreous fibers do not evaporate into air or dissolve in water. They are generally not broken down to other compounds in the environment and will remain virtually unchanged over long periods. 

  Eventually, synthetic vitreous fibers will be broken down if the water or soil is very acidic or very alkaline. Fibers can enter the air, water, and soil from the manufacture, use, and disposal of synthetic vitreous fiber-containing materials. Fibers with small diameters become airborne more easily than thick fibers, and can be transported by wind for longer distances. Synthetic vitreous fibers are not likely to move through soil.

SOURCE: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2004.

 

American Badger sighting today

american badger

This morning around 9:30 am I noticed an animal moving across the meadow. It looked like a large cat or small dog from afar so I grabbed a camera and ran over to the meadow. The badger ran up the dirt road and I got a few pics!

A one point it turned toward me and puffed up and growled. It was grunting and hissing as it ran off. Another amazing animal flourishing on the Tavaputs Plateau in the book-cliffs.

The badger has an interesting quality called “Embryonic diapause” or delayed implantation. This means the embryonic blastocyst does not immediately implant in the uterus after sexual reproduction.

Nature is wise.

Public scoping begins on Uinta Basin Railway

The Uinta basin railway will be devastating to the planet and the people. 

Submit a written comment

OEA will accept public scoping comments through September 3rd 2019. 

The easiest way to submit your written comments is via the “Submit Comments” tab at http://www.uintabasinrailwayeis.com/.

This was written by the center for Biological diversity:

Uinta Basin Railway Comment Writing Guide

Background:

  • The proposed Uinta Basin Railway oil train would increase production of oil from the Uinta Basin by between 225,000 and 350,000 barrels of oil per day. In a region that currently only produces around 80,000 barrels per day, this would represent a quadrupling of oil extraction, which would have dire consequences for air quality, public lands, water, and global warming. The construction and operation of the railway itself would also have major impacts. Three possible routes have been identified, but the 80-mile Indian Canyon route has been identified as the preferred option and is most likely to be constructed. At least $27.9 million in public funds have already been illegally dedicated to forward the project and the ultimate cost of the railway would be at least $1.2 billion. Maps and additional information can be found at: http://www.uintabasinrailwayeis.com/
    • Static maps of the three routes can be found in this document and if you have Google Earth, you can view the routes on an interactive map by opening these files.
  • For more background on the Uinta Basin Railway, check out this op-ed: https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/12/23/commentary-cib-should/

Major Concerns:

  • Air pollution in the Uinta Basin has already reached dangerous levels due to oil and gas development. By quadrupling oil extraction in the region, the railway would exacerbate this problem, resulting in more asthma attacks and other harmful conditions that can lead to premature death.
  • The extraction and combustion of four times as much oil from the Uinta Basin would threaten our ability to avoid the most disastrous effects of climate change by staying under 1.5°C warming. 
  • Fossil fuel development requires large amounts of water. At a time when water security for the region is more tenuous than ever, increased oil development unleashed by the Uinta Basin Railway would threaten the region’s water supply.
  • The new development needed to create a fourfold increase in oil development in the Uinta Basin will result in major impacts to the region’s landscapes, including on public lands.
  • New oil train traffic will create increased inconvenience, air pollution, and risk of derailment in the communities through which the trains travel.
  • If the railway is constructed, but recoverable oil reserves in the Uinta Basin are exhausted before it is paid off, taxpayers could be left to cover the cost.
  • To date, there has been very little information about the Uinta Basin Railway provided to the public and little opportunity for public participation. The uncertainty around many details of the project is concerning and should be resolved before the project moves forward. 
  • Committing funds to constructing the Uinta Basin Railway is precluding efforts to transition away from boom-and-bust fossil fuel economies — which are susceptible to volatile global markets — and towards more stable, local, clean, sustainable, and just economies. 

How to Submit:

The easiest way to submit your written comments is via the “Submit Comments” tab at http://www.uintabasinrailwayeis.com/.

Public Scoping Meetings

OEA will hold six public scoping meetings in communities in the project area during the public comment period. The public scoping meetings will be held at the following locations on the dates listed.

  • Monday July 15, 2019, 3-5 p.m. at the Ute Tribal Auditorium, 910 South 7500 East, Fort Duchesne, Utah. Start Printed Page 28613
  • Tuesday July 16, 2019, 5-7 p.m. at the Moffat County Fairgrounds Pavilion, 640 E Victory Way, Craig, Colorado.
  • Wednesday July 17, 2019, 5-7 p.m. at the Carbon County Event Center, 450 S Fairgrounds Road, Price, Utah.
  • Thursday July 18, 2019, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. at the Grace Event Center, 1024 W Highway 40, Roosevelt, Utah.
  • Thursday July 18, 2019, 5-7 p.m. at the Uintah Conference Center, 313 East 200 South, Vernal, Utah.
  • Friday July 19, 2019, 10 a.m.-12 p.m. at Radisson Hotel Salt Lake City Downtown, 215 West South Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Proposal for Transfer of Federal Land Parcels in Uintah County to State of Utah

 

SITLA is seeking a land transfer of 440 acres of BLM land. Consider making a public comment. UTSR is against this transfer because The Ute Tribe responded in a letter dated 8/2/2016 that they did not support the land exchange because the land is within the exterior boundaries of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation and assert ownership of those lands. The exchange was also brought up to the Ute Business Committee on 4/24/2017 and they opposed the idea.

Eastern Utah near Enefit proposed oil shale strip mine.

 

Here is the Vernal office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) news release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Heather O’Hanlon July 9, 2018 (801) 539-4129 Proposal for Transfer of Federal Land Parcels in Uintah County to State of Utah Vernal, Utah – School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) has requested title to 440 acres of federal parcels in T11S-R25E, Sections 5, 6, and 8 of Uintah County under the authorities of the Utah Enabling Act of July 16, 1894. Transfer of the parcel would fulfill the intent of the Utah enabling act to support the state’s schools through the land grant managed by the state. The Bureau of Land Management, Vernal Field Office (VFO) has completed an Environment Analysis to analyze the transfer of these lands from BLM to State administration. A 30-day public comment period will open on July 9. “The parcel requested, both surface and subsurface, are isolated from other BLM lands”, said Travis Kern, VFO Manager, “so they are administratively difficult to manage by themselves, and are entirely surrounded by private lands.” The Environmental Assessments are available for review at the following ePlanning links: http://go.usa.gov/xNwRJ. Comments can be added by clicking the “Documents” tab, then click the “Comment on Document” button. Alternately, comments may be submitted by email to BLM_UT_Vernal_Comments@blm.gov or by mail to the following address: BLM-Vernal Field Office, Attn: Stephanie Howard, 170 South 500 East, Vernal, UT 84078. Comments should be postmarked on or before August 9, 2018. For additional information, please contact Stephanie Howard at 435-781-4469. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800- 877-8339 to leave a message or question for the above individual. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Replies are provided during normal business hours.

Public comment document links  

Some pieces are here that I saw from reviewing the Environmental assessment.

This exchange would directly benefit three Enefit related projects involving oil shale development. The parcel is the piece isolated with in this green map showing Enefits current holdings which are private property.

map from Enefit web page land requested for trade is within the green area that Enefit all ready has leases on.

Excerpts from the EA: from page 3

“It has been previously suggested that for several reasons this project is connected to three other projects ongoing near the project area: the Enefit Utility Project, the Enefit Research, Demonstration, and Development (RD&D), and the Enefit South Project. The BLM has reviewed the rationale and made the following determinations: • Common proponent: The proponent for the Indemnity Selection is SITLA. The proponent for the other three projects is Enefit American Oil. There is no common proponent. • Common timing: The Indemnity Selection permit has been submitted to the BLM and is being reviewed under a draft EA. The Utility Project application has already proceeded to a final EIS. The RD&D project has already been already approved. The South Project mining plan has not yet been submitted to the State. There is no common timing. • Common geography: The Utility Project is located northeast of the Indemnity Selection. The RD&D project is north of the Indemnity Selection. The South Project abuts the southeastern corner of the Indemnity Selection. Geography is similar, but not the same. • Common impacts: The impacts of the Indemnity Selection are limited to the administrative action of transferring land and mineral ownership to SITLA, as disclosed in this EA. The impacts of the Utility Project result from surface disturbance associated with the installation of five rights of way of up to 19 miles in length. The impacts of the RD&D project result from testing stockpiled oil shale for development potential. The impacts of the South Project result from strip mining and processing of oil shale. The impacts are not the same. • Common purpose (meaning proponent purpose): SITLA’s purpose for the Indemnity Selection is to have the lands described in the Indemnity Selection classified or otherwise made available for entry or disposition pursuant to their application. Although Enefit has been in communication with SITLA regarding the 440 acres, this disposal does not guarantee development by Enefit. SITLA would be at liberty to lease the land for oil and gas development, sell it, permit livestock grazing on it, or retain it for future development. Enefit’s purposes for the Utility Project is to provide utilities to their private land. Enefit’s purposes for the RD&D is to obtain a preferential right lease to oil shale on federal lands. Enefit’s purposes for the South Project is to develop minerals on their private land. The purposes for the projects are not the same. • Cumulative Actions: 40 CFR 1508.25(a)(2) defines cumulative actions as proposed actions which potentially have a cumulatively significant impact together with other proposed actions and should be discussed in the same NEPA document. Impacts that accumulate with the Indemnity Selection are disclosed in this EA.

The BLM has determined that the Utility Project, RD&D, and South Project are not connected actions to the Indemnity Selection. All four projects are proceeding independently because they do not require the approval of any of the other projects to proceed as proposed. Also, all four projects are subject to different authorities: the Indemnity Selection is subject to 43 CFR 250, the Utility”

 

Page 7 and 8:

“3.2.1 GEOLOGY/MINERALS/ENERGY PRODUCTION The federal government currently owns all mineral rights associated the 440 acres. …. Oil shale is found in the Green River Formation in the Uinta Basin, this formation lies in this parcel. The In Lieu selection project area has areas where the overburden above the oil shale resource is less than or equal to 500 feet, which makes it a geologically prospective oil shale area. The shale under this parcel contains 30 – 40 feet thick of 35 gallons per ton of shale oil (Vanden Berg 2008) (Perkes 2018). The lands were classified as mineral lands by the USGS in 1916, but there is no finding of “Mineral in Character” 1  and there is no Known Oil Shale Leasing Area” established, therefore the BLM does not accept the 1916 mineral land classification. In addition, the In Lieu selection area was not identified in the Programmatic Oil Shale ROD (BLM 2013) as being available for oil shale development. The In Lieu selection area is completely surrounded by land and minerals that are privately owned (see the map in Appendix B). The owner of those lands and minerals has expressed interest in permitting an oil shale strip mine and processing plant through the State of Utah. 

foot note 1 It is my professional opinion that oil cannot be commercially produced from this parcel’s oil shale for the following reasons. 1) There is no commercial production of oil from oil shale currently in the United States including Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. 2) The Rand Corporation, under contact with the U.S. Department of Energy, estimated surface retorting plants (including mining and processing) would unlikely be profitable unless crude oil prices were $70 to $95 per barrel (Bartis, 2005). The BLM used the inflator calculator from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics to inflate these 2005 dollars to $91 to $123 (BLS, 2018). In March 2018 the price of oil in 2018 has been between $58 and $72 per barrel per the NASDAQ, 2018). 3) The size of the parcel would not allow independent development because of the lack of reserves to offset necessary financial investment. At a moderate size facility (25,000 barrels per day) there is only about four years’ worth of shale oil resource in the ground of this parcel. The four years estimate does not account for mining and processing losses or for the ramp and box cut that would be necessary to remove the 300 foot overburden but would also substantially reduce the amount of oil shale that could be extracted. Further the four years estimate assumes that processing would happen offsite to avoid a large capital investment because it would not by itself justify expenditures for construction of a primary and secondary treatment facility to remove nitrogen from the shale oil to reach the specifications for conventional oil. Based on these factors the 440 acres is not “Mineral in Character” for oil shale. Perkes, 2018″

From Interdisciplinary Team Checklist Page 2

“There are no known Prehistoric or Native American historic sites within the project area. The following Native American tribes were notified of the proposed undertaking via certified letter: Northwest Band of Shoshone Nation, Goshute Tribe, White Mesa Ute Tribe, Laguna Pueblo Tribe, Santa Clara Pueblo Tribe, Navajo Nation, Ute Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Southern Ute Tribe, Ute Mountain Tribe, Zia Pueblo Tribe, and the Eastern Shoshone Tribe. They were asked to identify traditional cultural places or any other areas of traditional cultural importance that need to be considered within the parcel. None of the tribes provided information about known sites or specific religious concerns. However, the Hopi Tribe responded to our inquiry and considers a “exchange of federal lands containing National Register eligible historic properties constitutes an adverse effect” and requests continuing consultation. They would also like to see a cultural survey and report for the proposed area. The Santa Clara Pueblo also responded and would like to be notified if cultural resources will be impacted due to the land exchange. The Ute Tribe responded in a letter dated 8/2/2016 that they did not support the land exchange because the land is within the exterior boundaries of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation and assert ownership of those lands. The exchange was also brought up to the Ute Business Committee on 4/24/2017 and they opposed the idea. Per conversation with SITLA and Utah SHPO, cultural inventories and additional consultation related to any proposed development after the exchange are required, pursuant to Utah Code (9-8-404). The State must afford historic properties the same level of protection as would the BLM under Federal law. However, The State of Utah is not required to conduct Tribal Consultation for State managed lands. A literature review of cultural resources within a one mile buffer of the project undertaking will be sent to the Hopi Tribe, Santa Clara Pueblo, and Ute Tribe.”

Petroteq is a scam.

Many companies have come and gone in the continuous pursuit of tar sands and oil shale “billions” in the remote Tavaputs Plateau of Eastern Utah. Much of this land is part of the Uncompahgre Reservation. SITLA is controlling and leasing this land on behalf of the beneficiaries who are Utah School Children.

The people who really benefit are SITLA board members and the companies they run.  The Governor Dirty Herbert (who appoints the board and the director of SITLA) and his friends also benefit. Many of the Utah State legislators and their friends benefit.  Local politicians benefit in Vernal and Uintah county. The list is long.

So much money has been invested in foolish and wasteful efforts to turn rocks into oil. Certain people have made a lot of money from this fraud. Most folks have lost and local communities have suffered bust and boom cycles in addition to corrupt politics, pollution and failed strip mines.

Meet MCW now Petroteq chairman in the middle of this photo. Val Hale with the Utah department of energy development is shown with Utah senator Kevin Van Tassell. Shortly after this ribbon cutting MCW was shown to be tresspassing on SITLA land after failing to make the lease payments to the trust.

Utah senator Kevin Van Tassell is currently proposing legislation to funnel CIB money over to his really good friend Mike Mckee.

MCW energy recently changed names to Petroteq  They have a lot to hide. See the complaint I made in 2016.

MCW trespass settlement

Lease termination

page 23 of 33

MCW Oil Sands Recovery, LLC
18653 Ventura Blvd., Suite 158
Tarzana, CA 91356
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Township 4 South, Range 20 East, SLB&M
Section 24: SW¼NE¼ (within)
Beginning at a point on the West line of the SW¼NE¼ of Section 24, T4S, R20E, S.L.B.&M. which bears
S00°03’30″W 2188.08′ from the North ¼ Corner of said section, thence N80°35’23″E 106.99′; thence N88°14’24″E
76.21′; thence N56°09’04″E 111.45′; thence N86°57’01″E 170.56′; thence S29°35’37″E 178.54′; thence
N70°59’42″E 112.54′; thence S70°12’47″E 51.67′; thence S34°34’27″E 50.92′; thence S17°52’02″W 43.46′; thence
S65°08’33″W 148.83′; thence S21°42’48″E 29.29′; thence S63°06’47″W 303.14′; thence N75°54’48″W 196.38′;
thence N62°12’16″W 134.03′ to the said west line of the SW¼NE¼; thence N00°03’30″E 244.96′ to the point of
beginning. Basis of bearings is the North-South ¼ section line of the said section which is assumed to bear
S00°03’30″W. Contains 4.79 acres.
The lease administrator has had this legal description reviewed by the GIS Group.
COUNTY: Uintah ACRES: 4.79 FUND: School

SPECIAL USE LEASE NO. 1838 (TERMINATION) (COTNINUED)
The Director has issued a Final Agency Action terminating Special Use Lease No. 1838 effective October 3, 2016. The
lessee is MCW Oil Sands Recovery, LLC (“MCW”). The SULA 1838 was issued effective July 1, 2016, for the purpose
of constructing, operating, and maintaining an oil sands processing facility.
Paragraph 10.4(a) of the lease required that MCW provide the Agency with a good and sufficient bond or other
acceptable financial guarantee to guarantee MCW’s performance of all covenants and obligations under SULA 1838, in the
amount of $200,000, to be filed with the Agency within 30 days of the commencement date of the lease. The deadline for
submission of the required bond was July 30, 2016. The required bond was not received by SITLA by the July 30, 2016
deadline.
Pursuant to Paragraph 11.1(a) of the lease, on August 18, 2016, the Agency sent a certified notice of default to MCW,
notifying MCW that they were in default of the terms and conditions of the lease regarding the bonding requirement set
forth in Paragraph 10.4(a) of the lease. The notice of default further notified MCW that they had 30 days from the date of
the notice to cure the default, and that if the default was not cured timely, the Agency would terminate the lease and exercise
its rights and remedies pursuant to SULA 1838. The deadline for MCW to cure the default was September 17, 2016.
MCW has failed to cure the aforementioned default prior to the September 17, 2016 deadline. Therefore, pursuant to
Paragraph 10.4(b) and Paragraph 11.2 of the lease, the Agency has terminated SULA 1838, effective October 3, 2016.
A certified notice of the final Agency action has been sent to MCW. If MCW wishes to appeal the action, they must
file a written petition within 14 days of the mailing date of the action, requesting that the Board of Trustees conduct an
adjudicative proceeding to review the Agency’s action. The written petition must be filed with the office of the Director
and contain the information set forth in Utah Admin. Code R850-8-1000. In the event that an appeal is not filed in the
applicable time period, the decision will become final and unappealable.
This item was submitted by Mr. Chris Fausett for record-keeping purposes.

 

Non Profits support Non Profits

Our work is supported by a thoughtful community and many individual acts and actions by all sorts of people. We have been fortunate to receive a generous grant to buy healthy food! Yesterday we went to the Utah COOP to purchase local and organic food for this years vigil. 

Plus no sales tax!  Thank you LUSH.

Utah Tar Sands Resistance is a bicycle powered protest and our bicycles come from local non profit, the Salt Lake City Bicycle Collective

 

Investor Warning

Recently Petroteq has been creating press releases and has put out PAID SPONSORED articles on energy websites stating they can produce oil at $20 a barrel. With the price of oil above $45 for the second half of 2016 and averaging about $50 in 2017, why couldn’t they ramp up production of their low-cost $20 a barrel oil?  The reason is simple… they can’t produce oil anywhere near $20 a barrel.

In 2017 MCW energy changed names to Petroteq  They have a lot to hide. See the complaint I made in 2016.

MCW trespass settlement

excerpts from this article explain the concerns well. I have seen first hand the fraud occurring on land leased from SITLA for tar sands and oil sands strip mining. 

https://srsroccoreport.com/biggest-breakthrough-energy-investor-warning/

“the more research I did on Petroteq and its competitors, the more I was convinced that the company’s claims were too good to be true due to old fashion EROI economics as well as several RED FLAGS.

How so?  Well, let’s first start off with first Red Flag that takes place in many small-cap companies.  And by that, I am referring to the oldest trick in the book… changing the name of the company.  Petroteq Energy was previously called MCW Energy Group.  On May 4th, 2017 the company announced the name change:”