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 : Arcon Energy (MIDL Presently) The Ultimate Sleeper -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Triffin who wrote (546)	5/25/1998 12:22:00 PM
From: H-Man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4142

Good Post... Not sure if MTBE toxicity is even relevant though... perception, politics, dems demogog, etc, stinky water... Agree that mtbe substitue may not be df-144, but when movement away from MTBE becomes a reality, It will be good news for MIDL. The bad part about it is that it shows that there will be resistance to any additive, from all sides. In my dd, I found that there were environmental groups and conservative groups against MTBE. Both will fight anything else as well. Big oil (arco etc.) will definatly fight, Imo and lose eventually. One of the websites I found listed all the mfgrs of MTBE & there were lots. All of the hype (I hate that word) arround MTBE will make it hard to hang onto long term. Big companies do not like controversy and sooner or later are going to need to find away make the public happy. Public sentiment will win over scientific fact most of the time, especially when the dems start mentioning "The Children". If not by law the purse will win. It would just be tooooooo easy to market "NO MTBE HERE !' The sociologial environment that makes that mktg pitch possible has already been created. In my estimation there are two distinct advantages that MIDL has with df-144: lower cost for the octane level & the MTBE issue. The mtbe issue will drive spikes into MIDL price. Be my guess, that MTBE is the reason for Exxon news. The lower cost will provide long term value. I agree about EPA/EOE/aproval/process stuff. I am investigating and would be interested in any dd you find. I'm not sure if I know the right questions to ask. but will anyway, (I'm a computer guy) Mind if I book mark you ? I would like to hear what EXXON has to say. I'm very interested in how long the testing period will last. What other additives are they testing ? etc My bet is they will have a conducted at least prelim tests and have an MTBE response ready by JUNE 30, 1998. It would be foolish not to. again, jmo. thanks for the thoughts