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 (5833)	7/23/1998 11:43:00 AM
From: Larry Ricker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6735

Mark, Your original criticism of the sampling procedure was that samples shouldn't have been taken from the middle cut. I agree that one would not expect to find the majority of the hydrocarbons there. It's even less likely that they would come out the bottom (more dense phase). So if they're not coming out the top - where the "froth" appeared in the tests - where DO you expect to find them?? The point of the Asensio summary, very clearly stated, was that SOLV sampled from three locations (logically chosen to span the extremes), and none had a hydrocarbon product of useful quality. If you had been in charge of the tests, what would you have done differently? Larry

To: mqmsi who wrote (5833)	7/23/1998 12:11:00 PM
From: JJB	Respond to of 6735

Mark In the filings in the Bankruptcy Court there are documents that relate to technical aspects of the separation process. I would summarize that here are two points that the NASD relying on the cigarette smoking man has relied on. First is the percentage of water that would remain in the extracted bitumen would be too high to upgrade into saleable products. This has been disputed by Solv-ex. Somewhat peculiar even though much of this technical analysis came under a cover sheet from Shell Oil the quoted the capabilities were of a previous generation upgrader. Specifications of the current generation Shell Engineering upgrader would indicate the ability to handle the percentage of water Solv-Ex bitumen would have. Secondly the water recirculation (recycling previous water) circuit had planned to use a filter system that jammed as the process at commercial level was producing outputs - bitumen, middle, and clays at a higher level than expected. The filter system could not handle it as it had at the test facility. It is my understanding Solv-ex was in discussion with a number of engineering firms regarding this problem when they ran out of money. In the reorg plan Solv-ex has indicated that there are elements of the process that may not receive patent protection in Canada. This is one of the main reasons for the court imposed order regarding SEC sharing confidential information. I do not believe anyone on this thread who has not been privy to this confidential information (I have not) could make a technical assessment of the process. Negative analysis of the process has been presented without at least including the technical elements that are available via court documents. I am not going to get in a rhetorical argument with Dr. Ricker on these points, as this is now a matter that will be resolved in Federal Court. It is the SEC investigation that has left this matter unresolved years longer than it should have been. jjb