mqmsi: I am not a chemist, but I think I may have a qualification for discussing the issues that you, evidently, lack: common sense.
You would like to turn the clock back several years, giving a bunch of plausible sounding reasons why Solv-Ex has a wonderful process and should be given all the money in the world to bring it to commercial fruition. But we went through this already--people heard those reasons before, believed them, gave Solv-Ex over $100 million, and watched the money go down the toilet.
Why did it fail? Is the process inherently worthless, or is it a great process, but management was stupid or corrupt, or (most likely) are both of those possibilities true? Who knows? Who cares? The net effect for shareholders is the same.
People who saw the company lose all the money and still have nothing to show for it were disinclined to fork over more money to give it a second try. Can you blame them? Is your paean to Solv-Ex's fabulous process a way of blaming previous investors for not investing more?
I'm sure you are excited about finding what you think is a flaw in Asensio's arguments about the company, but, once again, you are too late. I guess Solv-Ex never noticed the flaw or, if it did, it sure didn't do a great job of convincing investors that it was right and Asensio was wrong.
If someday some company or another is actually making big bucks using the Solv-Ex process, then, in retrospect, we will be able to say that it was management that stunk, not the process. Until then, both are suspect. |
