To: Pugs who wrote (8494 ) 1/19/1998 4:43:00 PM From: Charles A. King Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13091
I believe the company has met the criteria for leaving the pink sheets in every way except in the amount of volume necessary to attract business from regular NASDAQ market makers. There have been perhaps 2 or 3 MMs trading the very little volume we've seen, so the regular MMs aren't interested. Of course this is my opinion because I don't know whether the NASD OTC compliance office has called the SEC to get the word, but I don't know why not. I expect that when orders are announced, the trading will pick up briskly and GRNO will be back on the BB. As far as customer information is concerned, I suggest you start by calling the company as we all do. Most of the customers are overseas because that is the main focus at this point in the company's plan. After selling units overseas to build its capital base it will set up an operating division to run its own processors because that is where the real profit is. Incidently, the news releases about the Turkish company Manova refer to customers that I and another stockholder actually met while we happened to be visting the processor site. They wished us good luck in our investment. As far as learning more about the technology and markets, you might start at the GRNO Research site and read the posts there and then come back here. Basically, the idea is that waste oil is a almost-useless pollutant that governments would like to eliminate completely from existance. GRNO's competitors have not been able to recycle waste oil profitable while GRNO can with its new patent pending technology. The site is atSubject 18312 I believe the SEC did a disservice to GRNO investors by announcing that they intended to investigate whether the company was a scam or not. Since they never did investigate the company to the satisfaction of the investing public, they did a disservice not only to the GRNO investors and the company, they did it to the investing public and therefore diminished its own reputation in the eye of the public. That's what I think, anyway. Charles P. S. In my post Message 3204605 I used the term "prospective" customers and when I answered "yes" to your first question, I was referring to the existing processor and technology that prospective customers can see and take home samples of product to have tested in their own way. I wasn't referring to existing customers who have ordered units. Sorry for the confusion caused by my one word answer.