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 (5836)	7/23/1998 1:46:00 PM
From: JJB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6735

Mark Larry previously indicated that he has a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering. I'm outa hear for a few days will not be posting SEC complaint and Solv-Ex reply. jjb

To: mqmsi who wrote (5836)	7/23/1998 2:52:00 PM
From: WTMHouston	Respond to of 6735

Mark: <<Why didn't Asensio give us the analysis, and let us judge for ourselves?>> Better question is why didn't Solv? Especially, since JR publicly said that he would do so! As I recall, and I won't swear this is accurate, Solv & Co reported the alleged results of testing in similarly generic terms (such as "excellant"). The only difference was that Solv's spin was positive and MA's was negative. Not much surprising on either front..... Troy

To: mqmsi who wrote (5836)	7/23/1998 3:08:00 PM
From: Larry Ricker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6735

Mark, This was a pilot test of a plant in its startup phase. When I run such experiments (which I still do as a ChE), I take samples of every key location to see what is going on, to verify that stream compositions are as expected. The middle cut is a key stream going to the clay removal and "mineral recovery" step. It makes perfect sense to sample and analyze it (along with the other key streams). Not doing so in a pilot test would be negligent. In other words, this is precisely the "troubleshooting" situation where you indicate that you would do additional sampling. You also say: "He doesn't state, except for the filtered product, that any of the samples came from anywhere else. " The Asensio site says: "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." I don't see how it could be clearer than that. I would prefer to see the numbers too, but the data were SOLV's property, not Asensio's. He didn't run the tests. I doubt that he could legally provide the numbers. More to the point: why hasn't SOLV? By the way, this process is supposed to run continuously at steady-state. It's not a batch process (though SOLV was running the logwasher batch-wise because the rest of the system wasn't working). Your cooking analogy is half-baked. Larry