Barb,
You say that the posting of things proven true is not libelous. I have been studying Solv-ex for some time now, and I am still looking for proof that the process doesn't work. Do you believe that Asensio's aerial photos and testimony from a short term employee constitute proof? Obviously, you can't use the stock price, because it has been as high as 38, and while Solv-ex is in Chapter 11, I don't believe that brokers can solicit the sale of the stock. Where is some technical proof that the process doesn't work? Do you suggest that the pilot plant doesn't work? What degrees do you have that give you the expertise to make your opinion more valuable than that of the engineers at Raisio or Acidos y Minerales?
I have a degree in Chemical Engineering, so I at least have a little knowledge of what I am talking about. When a chemical process is first proposed, it is initially tested in the lab. If the lab results look promising, a pilot plant is constructed, to test the process on a larger scale. (The pilot plant is rarely a source of income.) Finally, if the pilot plant seems to be successful, then the full scale plant is built. The separation process that Solv-ex uses is a fairly simple one. There is no reason that I can think of that it should not work on a larger scale. The reason Solv-ex's plant had to be reworked as I understand it, is that the rate of separation of the bitumen and tailings were not in synch. This is an easy problem to solve, but has to be done in order to allow for the process to work in a continuous mode. The re-engineering does take money however, which as you know, Solv-ex has very little. The point is, is that while it is true that Solv-ex has not make money in its existence, one would not expect them to until the plant is completed. Simply because it has taken a long time to get to this point, it in no way negates the probability of the process working. There are no timetables for new processes, except those imposed by management or stockholders.
The problem I have with the assertions that short sellers of Solv-ex make is that they don't provide very good evidence, and if there was good evidence, they certainly wouldn't need Asensio's postings such as aerial photographs, fired employee's testimony, or alleged SEC statements to make their case. By the way, I talked personally with the SEC when Asensio attributed statements to them. The agent told me that it is the SEC's policy never to comment on an active case, and any agent doing so would be subject to termination.
Maybe I haven't seen the smoking gun. With all due respect, please show me the technical evidence that the Solv-ex process has no chance of success. |
