Mike, until that post you had always seemed like a pretty reasonable guy.
Don't the silly comparisons ever end. About the only thing that SU and SOLV
truly have in common is that they both begin with S. In SU's case it stands
for Success. In SOLV's case it stands for Suc....you get the idea.
If you are going to make the comparison, at least make it complete. A 4,500 bpd
plant pilot plant, a 20,000 bpd plant in 5 years and a 80,000 bpd plant in 10 years.
At least at first blush, it sounds just a bit more prudent, conservative, realistic,
and business-like than "We will have a 14,000 or 15,000, or test, or 85,000 bpd plant
in a year or two at a cost that is far less than anyone else has spent, even though
we don't know who is going to pay for it yet, with technology that has never been
submitted to public review." (Remember, to see their technology, you have to keep it
secret). Maybe "if" SOLV gets some money and/or partners (which Suncor already
has in Aust) they will be able to do something worthwile in 5-10 years. Suncor, as
I recall, is 30 years old. BTW, the $275 million for the pilot plant, is about what
SU is supposed to net this year from all of its operations. Even a cursory glance
at SU's financials makes any comparison ridiculous.
If you want to see how a developmental company with new technology does it
right, check out Catalytica (CTAL). Partners and money come from the likes
of GE, Phizer, Glaxo, and others. They publish papers describing their
patented technology and subject it to public, industry, technical, and
scientific scrutiny. They don't make outlandish claims that they can't fulfil,
and it does not appear that their CEO margins restricted stock or makes statements
that would make the drafter of the safe harbour provisions roll over in their
proverbial graves. (BTW, I don't know for sure, but I doubt if it took SU 17+
years to build a plant and I doubt that it started with any of the problems faced or
created by SOLV).
Even if SOLV may someday prove to be a sucess, my guess is that it is still a very
long ways away. It's one thing to invest in a few hundred shares at a few dollars
each and not care if you lose it all. It's quite another to bet the farm, as some
(although clearly not all) on this board seem to be doing. If the rest of your
investments are doing well, then who cares. If you care a little more about
maximizing your gains, there are much better companies to bet on in both the short
and long term.
I find it hard to understand, unless you (and most of the other longs) are willing to
lose it all, why you can't walk away from the stock, even for a short time, when it
clearly appears as though the stock has broken down. I was always taught to buy low
and sell high. It seems that even those that bought low a long time ago are more
blinded by their vision for the company, than enlightened by the view of the company.
While there may be some justification to taking a short term long risk around the
current levels in the hope that they will announce something positive soon, what
could justify holding through a 50% + decline. Technically and fundamentally this
stock is, as someone else put it, "buzzard bait." Last time I checked, however, SU
did not own any buzzards.
Just my thoughts...
Troy McKinney |
