Sid,
I was always under the impression that belly up meant dead. I think this expression comes from when a fish dies, it floats belly up. What is your definition of belly up? Are you trying to convince me that Solv-Ex is dead? Or maybe Solv-Ex is just taking a rest, lying on its back, with its belly up. Why is that $0.855 per share (the difference between today's price and Barb's prediction) so important to you? If you covered your short position, you wouldn't have to read my pot shots at you shorts.
As to your comment about Rendall and Campbell facing trial. My beliefs (which I am sure are the opposites of yours) are simply that, and a lot of it is conjecture, so I see no need to comment on that. The court will decide, and so far, in the battles of Solv-Ex against the SEC, I think Solv-Ex is up one. We shall find out when the case goes to trial.
I am glad you think I proved that the Solv-Ex plant is a fabulous success, but that certainly wasn't what I said. I simply have tried to show the other side of the story, and have tried to do it with pertinent facts. I have said it before, and I will say it again. The pilot plant works. Actually the separation process at Athabasca went better than Solv-Ex originally thought. The clays settled faster than Solv-Ex had anticipated, and the clay extraction process wasn't designed to handle it. This is not a difficult problem to solve, but it does cost money. In the reorganization plan, Solv-Ex states that they had a deal almost consummated for approximately $100 million, when mysteriously, the stock price plummeted and the deal was aborted. If they had this money, I believe that plant would be operational today. Nothing you nor any of the shorts have come up with so far have convinced me the process won't work. Look up the word facts in the dictionary and give me some of those in your next set of arguments against the process, and believe me, I'll be happy to listen.
Have a good day.
Mark |
