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: Mama Bear who wrote (5779)	7/12/1998 8:43:00 PM
From: mqmsi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6735

Barb, You say that the posting of things proven true is not libelous. I have been studying Solv-ex for some time now, and I am still looking for proof that the process doesn't work. Do you believe that Asensio's aerial photos and testimony from a short term employee constitute proof? Obviously, you can't use the stock price, because it has been as high as 38, and while Solv-ex is in Chapter 11, I don't believe that brokers can solicit the sale of the stock. Where is some technical proof that the process doesn't work? Do you suggest that the pilot plant doesn't work? What degrees do you have that give you the expertise to make your opinion more valuable than that of the engineers at Raisio or Acidos y Minerales? I have a degree in Chemical Engineering, so I at least have a little knowledge of what I am talking about. When a chemical process is first proposed, it is initially tested in the lab. If the lab results look promising, a pilot plant is constructed, to test the process on a larger scale. (The pilot plant is rarely a source of income.) Finally, if the pilot plant seems to be successful, then the full scale plant is built. The separation process that Solv-ex uses is a fairly simple one. There is no reason that I can think of that it should not work on a larger scale. The reason Solv-ex's plant had to be reworked as I understand it, is that the rate of separation of the bitumen and tailings were not in synch. This is an easy problem to solve, but has to be done in order to allow for the process to work in a continuous mode. The re-engineering does take money however, which as you know, Solv-ex has very little. The point is, is that while it is true that Solv-ex has not make money in its existence, one would not expect them to until the plant is completed. Simply because it has taken a long time to get to this point, it in no way negates the probability of the process working. There are no timetables for new processes, except those imposed by management or stockholders. The problem I have with the assertions that short sellers of Solv-ex make is that they don't provide very good evidence, and if there was good evidence, they certainly wouldn't need Asensio's postings such as aerial photographs, fired employee's testimony, or alleged SEC statements to make their case. By the way, I talked personally with the SEC when Asensio attributed statements to them. The agent told me that it is the SEC's policy never to comment on an active case, and any agent doing so would be subject to termination. Maybe I haven't seen the smoking gun. With all due respect, please show me the technical evidence that the Solv-ex process has no chance of success.

To: Mama Bear who wrote (5779)	7/12/1998 11:54:00 PM
From: bigtoe	Respond to of 6735

Barb, >>> the postings of things that have been proven true do not qualify as libel. The Solv Ex fraud has been exposed, and has been entered in the history books as fact, despite your delusional rantings to the contrary. <<< You really should consult with an attorney before you once again start speaking of things you're unclear on. No one at SOLV has been tried and convicted of fraud or any other crime!...nothing has been PROVEN TRUE (the implication here is that SOLV broke some law and has been tried and convicted of said crime) and the only thing exposed here is your stupidity (again...jeez, go figure). You repeatedly call John Rendall - an individual - a liar, accuse him of masterminding fraud and basically attempt to defame the man on a personal and professional basis IN A PUBLIC FORUM. Yet you offer no specific proof of such serious accusations other than the stock tubed. SOLV failed in it's attempt to produce oil in Alberta because of one reason: under capitalization...period. This happens everyday to perfectly legitimate businesses trying to actualize their business goal. The timing of the asencio attack - at the crucial point of pre-production- was the only thing he (asencio) did right and it proved to be the turning point of this issue... everything else was just fluff. On the other hand, your contrary opinion does not count as the "truth"...I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this. Not having a factual basis from which to publish damaging accusations about an individual is actionable. In other words, you don't know what the facts are...you only know the outcome and that has gotten many a loud mouthed braggart sued. What sweet justice that would be!! I suggest you actually read your pocket dictionary again ...otherwise, keep swingin' away there Barbieboy...show us just how much smarter you REALLY are. See you in cell # 2, bigtoe