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: mqmsi who wrote (5799)	7/19/1998 9:35:00 PM
From: norwalk hawk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6735

When I attended the annual meeting in December of 1996 we had a tour of the test plant. When we were taken into the mineral area I seem to remember that they had some process to put the sludge thru (the product that was left over after the bitumen was extracted- and it was extracted by heating it and allowing the bitumen to flow out the top of the log washer) that resulted in the like minerals (alumina, and each of the other products they were working with at that time) forming clumps of material after the water was extracted. They had found that the like minerals were attracted to each other in this process and then bond. They then seperated the minerals and processed them each individually from this. It has been almost 2 years and I might be forgetting something. This is just as I remember it. Mike

To: mqmsi who wrote (5799)	7/20/1998 12:57:00 AM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6735

To: mqmsi who wrote (5799)	7/20/1998 2:15:00 AM
From: bigtoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6735

mqmsi, Barb won't answer you unless you say something nasty about her, which, will cause Sid to answer for her, unless Gary does, and he will, unless Troy tries to smooth everything over, which causes Leigh to pounce on Gary, which always results in Larry answering for Gary, unless Sid does. regards, bigtoe P.S. Barb has NO researched personal knowledge of this subject and will dodge specific discussion of any, and all, technical aspects of this issue because she is just a assencio follower ...she has no clue... just a big mouth, a SHORT fuse and a computer from which she endeavors to yell "fire!!" and laugh at whoever runs....and who ever does not.

To: mqmsi who wrote (5799)	7/20/1998 8:02:00 AM
From: Sid Turtlman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6735

mqmsi: I am not a chemist, but I think I may have a qualification for discussing the issues that you, evidently, lack: common sense. You would like to turn the clock back several years, giving a bunch of plausible sounding reasons why Solv-Ex has a wonderful process and should be given all the money in the world to bring it to commercial fruition. But we went through this already--people heard those reasons before, believed them, gave Solv-Ex over $100 million, and watched the money go down the toilet. Why did it fail? Is the process inherently worthless, or is it a great process, but management was stupid or corrupt, or (most likely) are both of those possibilities true? Who knows? Who cares? The net effect for shareholders is the same. People who saw the company lose all the money and still have nothing to show for it were disinclined to fork over more money to give it a second try. Can you blame them? Is your paean to Solv-Ex's fabulous process a way of blaming previous investors for not investing more? I'm sure you are excited about finding what you think is a flaw in Asensio's arguments about the company, but, once again, you are too late. I guess Solv-Ex never noticed the flaw or, if it did, it sure didn't do a great job of convincing investors that it was right and Asensio was wrong. If someday some company or another is actually making big bucks using the Solv-Ex process, then, in retrospect, we will be able to say that it was management that stunk, not the process. Until then, both are suspect.

To: mqmsi who wrote (5799)	7/21/1998 2:57:00 PM
From: Larry Ricker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6735

Your comment: <<The above may not be the exact process, but that isn't important. I do not believe there is chemical separation process where the desired product does not come out of one end or the other, and certainly not in this case. I would never expect the middle layers to be worth anything. But Asensio in his article states that the terminated employee took samples from the middle layers of the log washers and sent them to a lab somewhere to have them analyzed. And guess who got the results? With all the credentials this employee had, he certainly should have known beforehand that the middle layers would be exactly as Asensio described them, exactly what we would expect, and a gross misrepresentation of the final output that Solv-Ex is attempting to produce. I tend to agree with Asensio that this former employee provided definitive proof of fraud. We just disagree by whom.>> From Asensio's site: (http://www.asensio.com/solvex22.html) <<Mr. Gill's statement includes a complete account of him witnessing the processing of approximately 300 tons of oil sands that yielded a maximum of two (2) barrels of very low-grade non-commercial quality bitumen "froth." Mr. Gill was hired by Solv-Ex on April 6, 1997 shortly after Solv-Ex's alleged plant start-up and was dismissed on June 13, 1997. He was charged with testing the quality of the plant's production and tailings. Solv-Ex did not have the necessary equipment and supplies. Instead, Mr. Gill sent samples to McMurray Resource Research and Chemex Labs in Edmonton. All of the results were extremely poor. Samples of the "middle layers" in the log washer; samples of the log washer "froth;" samples of the "sand tailings;" and samples of the minute amount of filtered product all show extremely poor results.>> The statement says that they analyzed all three layers, including the froth (which is the intended product), and all three layers were found to be poor quality. Seems clear to me. Your comment regarding the middle layer is misleading at best. If you want more details on the process you might review US patent # 5,124,008.