Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: schrodingers_cat who wrote (49764)	9/23/2005 12:08:06 AM
From: schrodingers_cat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206114

The shift in the track of the Rita to the east is really big news because it takes it through an area with many platforms and pipelines. 1/I remember reading an article about a Spar platform and being surprised that it was only designed for 115 mph winds. It was in the western gulf and apparently hurricanes aren't as common there. I don't know if that reflects typical practise in the western gulf but it might. 2/ Western Gulf is gassy and that is where the worst shortage is . 3/ Beaumont and Lake Charles both have a bunch of refineries. Combined there is probably as much as N.O. Both are likely to be affected by the current storm track. 4/ There is an LNG import facility in Lake Charles. 5/ I think the Lake Charles/Beaumont area also has a lot of gas processing plants. 6/The only good news about Rita is that it is a much smaller storm than Katrina...the hurricane winds only go out 80 miles from the center. One other point is that Lake Charles and Beaumont are both a little inland from the coast, but they sit on large lakes connected to the sea. They might not be as vulnerable as N.O. was, but they might be shut down if the shipping channels were blocked. From about midday tomorrow Rita will start scything through platforms and rigs and unless it weakens greatly it will do a lot of damage there. The further east it goes the more damage there will be, although a direct hit on Houston would also be bad news.

To: schrodingers_cat who wrote (49764)	9/23/2005 6:37:19 AM
From: hoopsville	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206114

As a former refining research engineer, I would have to agree that this sounds too good to be true. Even if it were true, it will be over five years before a commercial unit could be up and running. And what about the current desulfurization facilities which are in place and are entirely adequate? Are refiners going to decommission them and build replacement facilities? Such a trade off has never been economical in the past for other processes. The best time to introduce new processes is when capacity expansions are made. These things considered, I would say save your investment funds for a surer opportunity. Give Chevron an email citing "their interest" and ask if they are involved.

To: schrodingers_cat who wrote (49764)	9/23/2005 8:04:50 AM
From: Ed Ajootian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206114

schrodingers, SLPH -- thanks for your thoughts. This is not likely to be a scam given that the founder has lent the company $7 M. They are installing a small pilot unit at a customer site at South Korea. Here is a description of that project, taken from the latest 10Q: "In February 2005 we entered into an agreement with OIL-SC, Ltd (OIL-SC) based in Seoul, South Korea, which provides for the sale by us to OIL-SC of a Sonocracker™ pilot plant utilizing our Sonocracking™ technology for $1 million and the appointment of OIL-SC as our marketing representative for oil refiners in South Korea. The pilot plant, which is expected to have a processing capacity of up to 2,000 bbl/day, will be located in South Korea, and is intended to both serve as a demonstration unit for our Sonocracking™ technology to South Korean refiners and to upgrade petroleum products which OIL-SC purchases on the open market. We recently completed construction and testing of the plant components and expect to deliver and assemble the Sonocracker™ unit in South Korea in August 2005. We will also provide start-up assistance in connection with OIL-SC’s operation of the pilot plant. The agreement with OIL-SC calls for the $1 million purchase price for the pilot plant to be paid to us in installments. The initial installment of $300,000 was paid to us on March 15, 2005 and the second installment of $200,000 was paid to us on June 30, 2005. Additional installments of $50,000 and $450,000 are payable on September 1 and December 1, 2005. This agreement also provides that OIL-SC is entitled to a full refund of all payments if the pilot plant does not operate within agreed specifications within 90 days of the installation of the pilot plant. These specifications call for the pilot plant to upgrade a specified grade of medium weight crude oil (Arab Medium Crude) by increasing its gravity (API) by 9.8%, reducing sulfur weight content by 29.4%, and reducing nitrogen content by 29.9%. As the payment of the $1 million purchase price is refundable if the pilot plant does not meet the agreed specifications, no portion of the purchase price has been or will be recorded as revenue in our financial statements until the pilot plant is successfully installed and tested under the agreement with OIL-SC." It would seem to me that if the 90 days goes by and the customer does not ask for their money back, this would be a strong indication that the technology works. Wondering what you or others think about this.