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 : NAMX -- North American Expl.-- Que Sera Sera! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (2117)	1/13/1998 10:38:00 AM
From: Hunter Vann	Respond to of 4736

Sturgeon: I'd quit while I was ahead. You appear to be WAYYYYYYY out of your league.

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (2117)	1/13/1998 11:30:00 AM
From: Michael T Currie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4736

> hydrocarbon n:an organic compound (as acetylene or benzene) containing only carbon and hydrogen and often occurring in petroleum, natural gas, coal, and bitumens > From what it says then the hydrocarbon occurrs in the coal and also in petroleum. So technically petroleum is not a hydrocarbon but only contains hydrocarbons as an impurity? Bob, I think that we are discussing a technicality. Petroleum is always (as in no exceptions) a complex mixture of hydrocarbons plus associated nasties (heavy metals, sulfur and such). Coal may or may not have hydrocarbons contained within it, but the coal itself is not a hydrocarbon. By definition, it cannot be. It has no hydrogen component. Natural gas and/or oil are 'impurities' for lack of a better term in coal. Take this however you like. It is my last word on the subject. Mike

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (2117)	1/13/1998 11:49:00 AM
From: Hunter Vann	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4736

I have a pondering question that I wish someone could answer. Maybe our good friends Bob S. & Marty will give it a whirl. Mrs. Peppers(Stamm's wife)is the new President and Chief Operating Officer. It appears she has 22 yrs. of experience in management, administration, and oil & gas field services. She is an advisor to the boards of Enron Oil & Gas, Mobil Natural Gas, & Cononco. She is a member of the Texas Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association, Ind. Producers Association of America, American Petroleum Institute, and the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association. If her resume is indeed true, it appears she is MORE than qualified for this particular position. In the press release it also states that she will be responsible for implementing NAMX's strategic plans for oil & gas exploration and production and administrative operations. In a nutshell, she's basically running the entire operation. My question is this: What does Paul Ebeling bring to the table? Why in the world does Peppers & Stamm need Ebeling? Stamm of course holds the patent on the machine, while it appears his wife, a very knowledgable individual in the Oil & Gas field, runs the daily operations of the company. Ebeling surely wasn't hired for his business, management,and entreprenurial skills. For goodness sakes, he was trying to produce movies & sell synthetic hair wigs just last year. He was the one that was totally responsible for the demise of Tridon Enterprises. It appears that Ebeling doesn't have the know-how or the resources to develop & create a truly successful company. His past history speaks volumes about this fact alone. So, why in the world do Peppers & Stamm need him? Seriously! I can't seem to find one reason why he's still on board or was ever brought on board. Does ANYBODY have an answer? I'm really curious about this one..