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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : THE OZONE COMPANY! (OZON) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John who wrote (1088)	11/4/1997 12:05:00 PM
From: Amy Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4356

Jeff: I bought the newspaper. I haven't figured out how to pull side bar piece off the USA Today on-line site. John: In answer to some of your questions: I don't know the names of the companies using ozone on food in the overseas markets. But, I do know that in Israel, for example, food companies are using it for post harvest decay. Insofar as costs of ozone systems vs. chlorine, I can tell you this: an ozone system can EASILY and INEXPENSIVELY, be retro-fitted in a plant. Let's say that the average cost of the ozone equipment is $200,000. The savings in safety-related, transportation, and other chlorine-related costs are offset and the quipment will probably pay for itself in 2 - 4 years. But, also realize that utility companies WILL subsidize this retro-fitting because all of the utilities are REALLY rallying behind ozone. These subsidies may come in the form of rebates, or favorable financing of the equipment. Also, compare ozone to irradiation: to install irradiation in a plant is no easy task and it costs tons of money. (It also cannot be easily retro-fitted in the plant.) Moreover, there is still huge consumer resistance to irradiation. Government cites consumer research into irradiation and says that there is little if any consumer resistance. They are not privy to the consumer research I've seen on the subject. I say that consumer resistance to irradiation will remain strong and not allow irradiation to really get off the ground in any real practical application. (Why don't you ask people in the food processing biz what they think? I have. And, that's what convinced me.)

To: John who wrote (1088)	11/4/1997 12:27:00 PM
From: Jeffrey L. Henken	Respond to of 4356

Boy you don't ask for much do you? There are simply very few facts. Why is that? Because you must look at OZON as a developmental stage company. If we already had the contracts, the earnings, the facts, do you think OZON would be selling for $2 1/4? Of course not. I implore anyone who thinks they know any facts to remember that there are no facts until there are public press releases. In the meantime we will have to be happy with speculation. it's good enough for me based on something they call risk to reward. Regards, Jeff

To: John who wrote (1088)	11/4/1997 12:39:00 PM
From: Craig McNeill	Respond to of 4356

John, good questions. I too was looking for european/asian companies using ozone applications, more to identify who potential competitors might be, as well as to understand the economics. I had no luck, and I know that's not reassuring. But what we do know are some of the favorable economics in the laundry industry, and as best as I could figure, these same economics should "carry over" to food processing. The benefits are: lower costs of by-product disposal - used chlorine must be disposed of in environmentally friendly ways whereas, ozone evaporates; lower utility costs - while electrical costs may increase in order to produce ozone it is offset by savings in the laundry process by the ability to run shorter cycles and use less hot water; improved product quality - in laundry systems, ozone sanitizes more thoroughly than in traditional processes. There are many posts and several articles which discuss economics/paybacks in laundry applications. I'm not saying that these reasons will carry over 1 for 1 to food processing...but the environmental and quality issues certainly will still hold. Those issues can outweigh the simple capital cost decision, if conversion costs are within 20-30% of traditional IMHO. I believe that irradiation systems will be far more costly. But, the company still needs to layout for the marketplace (and investors) what the cost/benefits are to ozone processing vs. alternatives. Thy haven't done this because they are still in development and pilot studies. All this being said, I'm long OZON based on DD and instinct. Downside risk from here may be 25-35% and upside potential is several fold. Its definitely not an investment for everyone. I don't like the "huge contracts" banner, because that's not the way it will happen. I anticipate a series of smaller announcements and business partnerships. Good luck to all. cm