Tonto, why do you continue to post this cr-p. When you won't discuss
them and back them up.
"Please review their 10Q filing Nov 13/96.
1)they have knowingly stated that commercial production would begin at
the latest by Q1/97, even though they had a experiemental permit
to only test the eqpmt, whereas a commercial permit could not be issued without a
lengthy review by both AEUB & APEA,which typically takes two years.
Further, they had submitted in writing in their original 1995
application to the AEUB that they did not expect to initiate commercial production until
2002."
I challenged you on this before and you refused to back it up. Yes on
page 10 the company used the term "commerial production", but that term
was only used to indicate the could sell it on a commercial basis, ie,
recieve money for it, not some technical term that might be in the
Canadian regulation--here is the phrase
"The Company anticipates that the initial stage plant will be operational
and initiate commercial production and sale
of bitumen during the first quarter of calendar year 1997.
The schedule is considered aggressive and delays could adversely affect total capital
costs."
If you read the entire 10q -- note 1 states:
"The oil sands plant being constructed at the Bitumount Lease is designed to
recover 14,000 barrels of bitumen per calendar day using four production
modules, at an estimated cost to complete of approximately $125 million. The
initial stage plant production is scheduled to begin operation during the
first quarter 1997, at a rate of about 100,000 barrels of bitumen per month
using a single production module, at an approximate capital cost of $70
million. Sufficient funds are available from both the Company and its 10%
joint venture partner, UTS, for this purpose. Based on the availability of
cash flow or third party financing, the capacity of the initial stage plant
will be expanded by installing and commissioning the additional production
modules to reach design capacity."
And we all know they have the permits to do this-- as PR and ASSensio
lied about this fact so much the Canadian government issued a statement
say they were in compliance.
The company has never said they are going to do a 100,000 b/day in the
near future. Let's deal with the facts, and start comparing apples
with apples and not with oranges.
"2)They stated revenues would be generated by this production which would self
finance the balance of the project."
Show me where the company ever said they would finance the balance
of the project with internal cash flow. What they said was once they
show the system works and can generate cash flow, they would be able
to get further financing for "commercial" production--meaning the
80,000 - 100,000 per day.
3)they stated that Gibson petroleum had agreed to purchase their
bitumin, have they produced a signed agreement with Gibson?
Show me any proof they do not have a deal with Gibson!
"4)They had sufficient funds to complete the 1st phase of the investment, which we now
know they did not since the plant is 60% incomplete."
Show me any proof that the initial 1st phase is only 60% complete.
This comes from PR and ASSensio. And we have learned today what type
of documentation they have. "None"
I await your response to these four points. |
