Your comment:
<<The above may not be the exact process, but that isn't important. I do not believe there is chemical
separation process where the desired product does not come out of one end or the other, and certainly
not in this case. I would never expect the middle layers to be worth anything. But Asensio in his
article states that the terminated employee took samples from the middle layers of the log washers
and sent them to a lab somewhere to have them analyzed. And guess who got the results? With all the
credentials this employee had, he certainly should have known beforehand that the middle layers
would be exactly as Asensio described them, exactly what we would expect, and a gross
misrepresentation of the final output that Solv-Ex is attempting to produce.
I tend to agree with Asensio that this former employee provided definitive proof of fraud. We just
disagree by whom.>>
From Asensio's site: (http://www.asensio.com/solvex22.html)
<<Mr. Gill's statement includes a complete account of him witnessing the processing of approximately 300 tons of oil sands that
yielded a maximum of two (2) barrels of very low-grade non-commercial quality bitumen "froth." Mr. Gill was hired by
Solv-Ex on April 6, 1997 shortly after Solv-Ex's alleged plant start-up and was dismissed on June 13, 1997. He was charged
with testing the quality of the plant's production and tailings. Solv-Ex did not have the necessary equipment and supplies.
Instead, Mr. Gill sent samples to McMurray Resource Research and Chemex Labs in Edmonton. All of the results were
extremely poor. Samples of the "middle layers" in the log washer; samples of the log washer "froth;" samples of the "sand
tailings;" and samples of the minute amount of filtered product all show extremely poor results.>>
The statement says that they analyzed all three layers, including the froth (which is the intended product), and all three layers were found to be poor quality. Seems clear to me. Your comment regarding the middle layer is misleading at best.
If you want more details on the process you might review US patent # 5,124,008. |
