Sid and G.,
Thanks for responding to my post to Larry, Barb, and Gary. I didn't have time this morning to respond to you two. What I was trying to say, is when one makes a decision based on some information, one must consider the source of the information. Is that asking too much? I am sure that Larry is a brilliant man, because I know first hand that Chemical Engineering is a rigorous discipline. However, no matter how brilliant Larry is, his opinion has to be somewhat suspect if he hasn't "got his hands dirty" studying the process. (By the way, this is no reflection on Larry, I just don't believe that he has the necessary data to make a definitive statement.) Most of you shorts say the process is bad, but don't come up with the specifics. You can sway my opinion if you simply can explain a few things to me. These are as follows:
1. Does the pilot plant in Albuquerque work? Yes or no and why or why not are the answers I am looking for here.
2. If the pilot plant does work, but it won't work on a larger scale, why not? We aren't working with chemical reactions here, just a separation process.
3. I am going to quote from the re-organization plan and Barron's.
First the re-organization plan. "In the course of start-up operations, it became apparent that modifications to the water recirculation circuit would be required in order to operate the extraction plant on an extended or continuous basis. This was caused by the settling of fine clays more rapidly than had been anticipated in a unit of equipment that was not designed to capture the clays. Although the extraction plant could be successfully operated and the process demonstrated for several hours before the build up of clays required shutdown and clean out, rumors were circulating that the technology didn't work."
From Barron's, August 3, 1998. "A March 29, '97, press release, for instance, reported that "oil (bitumen) production commenced" and that testing of plant components was "proceding normally." In fact, the agency says, that was merely the first date any bitumen had been run through the plant "in a crude test," one that was halted after 12 hours because "bitumen quality degraded rapidly due to inadequate filtration, water clarification and instrumentation components."
The above, my friends, are two ways to look at the same event. Solv-ex is using it as a positive, and Barron's a negative. Whom do you believe? Is it really important? Does the Barron's account anyway preclude the process from working with some modification? I don't think so. This is what I have been trying to say all along. Explain to me if I am wrong.
Although I have a degree in Chemical Engineering, (by the way G., one of the top schools in the country) I have never practiced the profession. I went to graduate school in business instead. I honestly don't know if the Solv-Ex process works or not. From the credible evidence I have seen, I think there is a much more likely chance that it does work, than it doesn't. I am relying on the company's view for my opinion, because it seems more plausible than any of the refutations I have read. Quite frankly, the schematics of the process I have seen don't give me enough information to make any absolute judgments, but they seem to show a workable process. I know Larry has more knowledge in the area of Chemical Engineering than I do, but the proposed process isn't a difficult one, certainly not one one that would require a PhD to understand.
Sid, you may call me hard headed and that is fine, it doesn't bother me. I am approaching this thread just like I approach business. If I ask a question and someone tries to give me the runaround, I'll keep asking it again and again until I get the answer I am trying to obtain. The questions I am asking can probably only be answered by Larry or G. to my satisfaction, because right now, I don't think the stock price is a relevant factor in whether the processes of Solv-Ex will work or not, so you and Gary can spare me all that market type explanation. I am not going to take the word of Barron's or the SEC either, because I don't think they have anyone qualified to make a judgment on the process (in fact, I think the SEC has admitted this fact).
Even though we disagree, I enjoy hearing your opinions. Sid and G., I really don't think you need to get so "testy" when I ask questions, just answer them. I have met John Rendall, and my impression of him is exactly the opposite of yours. I don't claim to know it all, but I don't think there is anyone on this thread who does. If you can answer my questions, please take your best shot.
Regards to all,
Mark |
