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 : Solv Ex (SOLVD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Annie who wrote (5106)	11/21/1997 12:23:00 PM
From: TheDuke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6735

John Gotti Jr.? Marty Zweig? Parker Quillen? Michelle Sarian? Dan Dorfman?

To: Annie who wrote (5106)	11/21/1997 1:09:00 PM
From: JJB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6735

There is a Dow News release that out that would cause question as to Koch going ahead with project with Solv-ex technology. Since they are protective of their property and require a subscription I'll let you all find it. To bad they are not equally protective of other people rights and accuracy. Since I identified every one who attended the hearing I can say no reporters (excluding court) attended. If they had attended they would have heard the US trustee explain how Koch commitment to exceeded the 31 & 9.1 (additional contigent royalty lean) million they had on the table. They were commited to .5 - 1 billion to finish the project based on Solvex technology. Solv-ex would maintain technology rights which could be used to produce royalties world over. Current permits are contingent on process and Koch is commited to deliver clays to Solv-ex for additional processing. Koch will have 25% interest in minerals. (Not sure howw UTS figures in on that side).Koch also obtains 2 million Solv-ex warrants and will finance Solv-ex % of oil plant completion at 10% per year. A similar assesment was stated by the unsecured creditor attorney who basically represented Clearly Gottlieb (largest unsecured US creditor). It is my understanding they are evaluating taking the case forward against shorts as a class action on the part of the shareholders. I do not believe they wanted to be seen as sticking it to shareholders. It is good that the folks at Solv-ex get back to engineering and get out of litigation and mine construction business. Regarding dilution of position yes 78% of the oil is gone. As is the need to raise the vast sums for completion. Shorts ability to drain capitalization away worked. My analysis which I have confirmed with others indicates metals and minerals to be 3x the value of the oil (imo everone please do own dd). This and possible additional revenues from other large projects do not make this as bleak as it is painted. Short position must still be large. I have observed the legal process regarding the bankruptcy first hand and would assign them no blame. I think the US and Canadian systems have done the best they could do with a difficult situation and commend them. The regulatory protection investors and companies depend on is the failure. Without confidential information being fed Syncrude by SEC and NASD they seemed to be blind. I think the shoddy WSJ Dow news release speak for itself. jjb