AS-12 is an acidic cleaner in liquid form, which has been formulated to aid in the removal of Iron Sulfide and mild depositions of Calcium Carbonate from down-hole equipment surfaces and any other locations where a low pH may be advisable. Due to its very low pH, it is recommended that general safety precautions be observed while handling the concentrated material, wearing suitable facial and skin precautions.
CI-95 is formulated around an oil-soluble, water-dispersible filming amine designed for use in sour gas and producing oil wells. It is a liquid compound, which has been formulated to give a very tenacious film with an extended persistency without undesirable “gunking” on the down-hole tubulars.
SCI-97 Quatemary Surfacant is designed for use in down-hole cleanups in producing oil wells. It is a quatemary ammonium chloride compound which has been successfully used to clean the down-hole surfaces in producing wells, as well as in salt water disposal and injections systems, while at the same time water-wetting the solids to assist in removing these from the produced crude oil.
SI-15 Scale Inhibitor is a broad based spectrum, high-calcium tolerant, water soluble scale inhibitor which has been formulated to inhibit the formation and deposition of Calcium Carbonate scale in oil field brines. SI-15 will complex well with the calcium cations, impeding crystal growth and subsequent scale formation and deposition.
HI-17 is an aqueous solution of an alkyl amine along with other proprietary ingredients, which is used to prevent precipitation of sodium chloride crystals from high chloride brines. It may be applied over the wide range of temperatures and pressures, which are typically found in producing oil and gas wells with little to no impact on performance.
We have developed a photo-sensitive coating that is applied to paper to produce what is known in the printing industry as proofing paper or “blue line” paper. We developed this formulation over several years of testing. The formulation is technically in the public domain as being within the scope of an expired patent of duPont. However, other companies have not duplicated the exact formulation utilized by us, to the best of our knowledge, and we protect it as a trade secret.
Slick Barrier is an underwater protective coating, which prevents the adherence of barnacles to boat hulls. The product is environmentally friendly and biodegradable, which we believe to be particularly appealing in fresh water marine applications. The product is currently being tested on pleasure boats throughout the United States and Europe. A patent application for “Slick Barrier” was filed in 2003, and we are applying for trademark protection both nationally and internationally. We expect to release this product in 2005, although no specific date has been set.
In November 1998, we acquired all of the outstanding shares of Green Globe in exchange for 30,000 shares of our common stock. Green Globe is operated as a separate subsidiary and sells its products under the trade name Qualchem.™ The acquisition of Green Globe has given us access to the chemistry and product lines of Green Globe which include environmentally friendly paint strippers and cleaners, many of which have been qualified for use by the U.S. military. Of particular note in the Green Globe line was the development of dual package cleaning and drying “wipes” which produce a clear, non-reflective coating on glasses, computer screens and instrument panels. The wipes were developed, and have received U.S. military approval, for the cleaning of the instrument panels of combat aircraft.
Proprietary Technologies
With respect to our formulations, which are proprietary, we have patented our KH-30 oil well cleaner in the United States, Australia, Russia, Nigeria, Venezuela, Vietnam and OAPI. We also have 12 additional country patent applications pending in most of the major oil-producing countries around the world (including the European Union and Canada). We believe our patent is strong and will help our competitive position. However, we are aware that others may try to imitate our product or invalidate our patents. We have in the past vigorously enforced our trade secrets such as the one relating to our Uniproof proofing paper, and intend to continue to do so in the future. However, we recognize that intellectual property rights provide less than complete protection. We believe that no other company is currently producing a product similar to KH-30.
In addition to applying for patent protection on our KH-30 product, we have also registered “KH-30” as a trademark. Trademark protection has also been obtained for the “Uniproof” name for our proofing paper. We anticipate applying for both patent and trademark protection for our other products in those jurisdictions where we deem such protection to be beneficial.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Three Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to the Three Months Ended June 30, 2004
Revenues. Revenues for the three months ended June 30, 2005 were $76,610, a $192,027, or 71% decrease from revenues of $268,637 in the comparable three months of 2004. The decrease in revenues was due to lower sales of Specialty Chemicals and Uniproof proofing paper. Specialty Chemicals, which include sales of our KH-30 products and Green Globe/Qualchem military sales, decreased by $121,599 to $76,339, or 61% compared to $197,938 in the comparable three months in the previous year. This decrease was due primarily to lower sales of our KH-30 family of oil dispersant products. Uniproof proofing paper sales decreased $70,428 due to no orders from our primary customer.
Cost of Goods Sold. Cost of goods sold decreased $51,318, or 45% to $61,717 or 81% of sales, for the three months ended June 30, 2005 from $113,035, or 42% of sales for the three months ended June 30, 2004. The decrease in cost of goods sold and the higher percentage of sales was due to the lower sales levels.
Gross Profit. Gross profit for the three months ended June 30, 2005, decreased by $140,709, or 90% to $14,893 or 19% of sales compared with $155,602 or 58% of sales in the prior period. The decrease in gross profit and gross profit percentage reflects the lower levels of sales of specialty chemicals and Uniproof proofing paper.
Operating Costs and Expenses
General and Administrative Expenses. General and administrative expenses increased $53,106 to $721,422 or 942% of sales for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared with $668,316 or 249% of sales for the three months ended June 30, 2004. The increase in general and administrative expenses is primarily related to an increase in professional fees for consulting services partially offset by lower salaries and benefits due to the departure of certain executives, lower travel and entertainment expenses, marketing expense, insurance and office expenses.
Depreciation and Amortization. Depreciation and amortization remained relatively constant for the three months ended June 30, 2005 as compared to June 30, 2004.
Interest Expense. The Company had interest expense of $90,574 for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared with interest expense of $69,392 in the corresponding period in 2004. The increase was due to the additional warrants issued to the holder of the convertible term note in February 2005.
17
Net Loss. The three months ended June 30, 2005 resulted in a net loss of $814,338 or $0.03 per share as compared to a net loss of $596,019 or $0.03 per share for the three months ended June 30, 2004. The average number of shares of common stock used in calculating earnings per share increased 1,312,938 shares to 23,529,472 as a result of 932,250 shares issued for the conversion of the note payable and 800,000 shares issued in connection with the private placement.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
As of June 30, 2005, the Company had $215,208 in cash and cash equivalents, as compared to $365,610 at March 31, 2005.
The $150,402 decrease in cash and cash equivalents was due to net cash used in operating activities of $9,009, net cash used in investing activities of $21,126 and net cash used in financing activities of $120,267. Cash used in investing activities consisted of payments of $12,147 related to patent applications for KH-30 and the purchase of production equipment and other fixed assets of $9,116, which was partially offset by receipt from loans of $137. Cash used in financing activities consisted of the payment of a related party payable of $133,600, partially offset by the receipt of stock subscription receivable of $13,333.
During July 2005, the Company issued one additional Series A Unit or 100,000 shares of its common stock for a purchase price of $80,000 as per the securities purchase agreement dated March 18, 2005
As of June 30, 2005 the Company had no backlog. Backlog represents products that the Company’s customers have committed to purchase. The Company’s backlog is subject to fluctuations and is not necessarily indicative of future sales.
During the past two fiscal years ended March 31, 2005 and 2004, the Company has recorded aggregate losses from operations of $4,423,974 and has incurred total negative cash flow from operations of $3,801,148 for the same two-year period. During the three months ended June 30, 2005, the Company experienced a net loss from operations of $814,338 and negative cash flow from operating activities of $9,009. These matters raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The Company’s consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
The Company’s continued existence is dependent upon several factors, including increased sales volume, collection of existing receivables and the ability to achieve profitability from the sale of the Company’s product lines. In order to increase its cash flow, the Company is continuing its efforts to stimulate sales and cut back expenses not directly supporting its sales and marketing efforts.
18
Concentration of Risk
The Company sells its Uniproof proofing paper to three customers. One of these customers constitutes 98% of Graphic Arts sales and 26% of total customer sales for the three months period ended June 30, 2004. There were no sales to this customer during the three months ended June 30, 2005. The loss of this customer would have adverse financial consequences to the Company. We have provided liberal credit terms to this customer and there is a risk that a certain amount of this receivable balance may prove to be uncollectible. The Company believes that this customer will purchase additional product and the Company would use that as leverage to collect any outstanding balances.
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk
The market risk inherent in our market risk sensitive variable interest rate debt is the potential losses arising from adverse changes in interest rates.
At June 30, 2005, the Company had a loan that had a variable interest rate. The loan, which had an outstanding balance of $845,200 at June 30, 2005, was obtained in March 2004 and has a three-year term. The loan accrues interest at the greater of the prime rate of interest (as published in the Wall Street Journal) or 4% per annum. A one-percentage point increase in the prime rate of interest affecting our loan would increase our net loss by $8,452 over a year.
19
Item 3. | Controls and Procedures. |
Evaluation of the Company’s Disclosure Controls
As of the end of the period covered by this report, the Company has evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of its disclosure controls and procedures (“disclosure controls”). This evaluation (the “controls evaluation”) was done under the supervision and participation of the Company’s management, including its chief executive officer (the “CEO”) and interim chief financial officer (the “CFO”) pursuant to SEC Rule 13a-15. Rules adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission require that in this section of the report the Company present the conclusions of its CEO and CFO about the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls based on and as of the date of the controls evaluation.
CEO and CFO Certifications
Appearing as exhibits 31.1 and 31.2 to this report are “Certifications” of the CEO and CFO. The certifications are required pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Section 302 Certifications”). This section of this report contains information concerning the controls evaluation referred to in the Section 302 Certifications and this information should be read in conjunction with the Section 302 Certifications for a more complete understanding of the topics presented.
Disclosure Controls
Disclosure controls are procedures that are designed with the objective of ensuring that information required to be disclosed in the Company’s reports filed under the Securities Exchange Act, such as this report, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls are also designed with the objective of ensuring that such information is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including, without limitation, the CEO and CFO, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
Limitations on the Effectiveness of Controls
The Company’s management, including, without limitation, the CEO and CFO, does not expect that the Company’s disclosure controls will prevent all error and fraud. A control system no matter how well conceived and operated can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations of all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within the Company have been detected.
Scope of Controls Evaluation
The CEO/CFO evaluation of the Company’s disclosure controls included a review of the controls’ objective and design, the controls’ implementation by the Company and the effect of the controls on the information generated for use in this report. In the course of the controls evaluation, management sought to identify data errors, controls problems or acts of fraud and to confirm that appropriate corrective action, including process movements, was being undertaken. This type of evaluation will be done on a quarterly basis so that the conclusions concerning controls effectiveness can be reported in the Company’s quarterly reports on Form 10-QSB and annual report on Form 10-KSB. The overall goals of these various review and evaluation activities are to monitor the Company’s disclosure controls and to make modifications, as necessary. In this regard, the Company’s intent is that the disclosure controls will be maintained as dynamic controls systems that change (including improvements and corrections) as conditions warrant.
20
Conclusions
Based upon the controls evaluation, the Company’s CEO and CFO have concluded that, as of the end of the period covered by this report, the Company’s disclosure controls are effective to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed in the Company’s reports filed under the Securities Exchange Act such as this report, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms.
There has been no change in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting during the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2005, that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting.
21
PART II
OTHER INFORMATION
See Note 7, Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Item 2. | Changes in Securities and Use of Proceeds |
Not Applicable
Item 3. | Defaults upon Senior Securities |
See Note 3, Convertible Debt
Item 4. | Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders |
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
| 31.1 | Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 Sec. 302 |
| 31.2 | Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 Sec. 302 |
| 32.1 | Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 Sec. 906 |
| 32.2 | Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 Sec. 906 |
22
United Energy Corp.
FORM 10-QSB
June 30, 2005
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Small business issuer has duly caused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
Dated: August 12, 2005 | | UNITED ENERGY CORP. |
| | By: | /s/ Brian King
|
| | |
|
| | | Brian King, Chief Executive Officer (as principal executive officer) |
| | |
| | By: | /s/ James McKeever
|
| | |
|
| | | James McKeever, Interim Chief Financial Officer (as principal financial and accounting officer) |
23