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 : Green Oasis Environmental, Inc. (GRNO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert Korn who wrote (9109)	4/7/1998 5:58:00 PM
From: Michael L. Voorhees	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13091

Robert: as I predicted. The economic pressures and the SEC halting, have forced GRNO to address stockholders at the expense of LP's. I doubt if the SEC looked to kindly on an LP associated with the company which could possibly present "Conflicts of interest" associated with stockholders and I imagine the GRNO lawyers have told management such. THESE ARE JUST MY HUMBLE OPINIONS.

To: Robert Korn who wrote (9109)	4/8/1998 12:07:00 AM
From: DIVER	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13091

Robert, Re your post: "I point you to the recent press release: The Company has applied to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) to amend its existing permit to increase processing capacity to 1,000 gallons per hour. The amended application is still pending. I have just gotten off the phone with DHEC. They essentially referred me to another office to file FOI papers so I could have access to internal documents on GOE's permit process. When I pressed the supervisor, mano a mano, he stated that there have been serious communication problems from GOE, and they have not been forthcoming with things they have promised to provide. But read my lips here, folks: THERE IS NO CURRENT, PENDING APPLICATION FOR GOE TO INCREASE IT'S FEEDSTOCK RATE TO 1000 GPH. Nada. Nicht. Nein. FAGADDABOUTIT, None. No official application in process. No unofficial application. Nothing. They do say however, that they have talked to GOE as recently as today and a package of info is said to be coming soon. The check is in the mail. My ass is a banjo." __________________________________________________________ I FIND THIS SHOCKING!!!!! Will anyone verify the above. Check with DHEC, have B.C. show the paperwork as proof of request? DHEC, because of FOI act must show the request if it has been submitted And Reece, control your urge to attack Robert Korn (who obviously knows what good DD really is) nor am I interested in hearing any comments about me. I am just curious as to the facts of Roberts post. If he is correct and no permit has been submitted then the shareholders and LP folks should take some action. Just My Opinion Bill Terry

To: Robert Korn who wrote (9109)	4/8/1998 5:55:00 AM
From: Charles A. King	Respond to of 13091

Robert, in the absence of any other information at this early hour, I must ask the first question which is why GRNO would obviously deceive us and GRNO's attorney who approved the press release stating that an application was made. Another question would be, what information is DHEC requesting from GRNO that they don't already have? DHEC was represented at the air testing last June. They were supplied data from that test. Are they now saying the test data they wanted at the time was incomplete? When is an application not an application? When all the required information has not been supplied. In comparing the data submitted by GRNO to DHEC in a document dated June 30, 1997, with a document from DHEC to GRNO dated September 15, 1997, I see certain items that puzzle me. The September DHEC document is the notification that the data has been reviewed and the permit granted. Attachment A of that document is a table of toxic air pollutants which are modeled for the unit. Comparing these data with Table 2.1 of test data supplied by GRNO in June, I see some of the modeled pollutants were listed in the test data and some were not. The ones listed were far lower than DHEC's model indicates. But why does DHEC's table model parameters that they didn't have numbers for? Is this the data now being requested, 9 months later? Will this require the test to be rerun? I don't have these answers and I don't understand why it is necessary for us to incur the expense of dragging this information from DHEC through the Freedom of Information Act. Continuing in my ongoing role of Mister Investor Happy Face, (Hi Norm!) and with no word from GRNO, let me tell you my take (or spin) on what all this means to me. I think that GRNO is waiting for the long delayed orders to be placed at which time plans can be made to move the entire operation to Houston. I think BC is thoroughly fed up with this entire situation. Remember, he told us last year that getting this amended permit would be easy after the initial permit was granted. I may be completely wrong in my assumptions and I haven't talked to GRNO in a long time. I prefer to go by the official news releases blessed by the attorney. I don't know why the conflict with the SEC would prevent GRNO from supplying data to DHEC. It is in everybody's interest to have that processor up and running full throttle. Retesting the plant means going through the whole process again of last summer. I don't think GRNO intends to do that. Just my guess. Charles