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 (5902)	8/5/1998 12:19:00 AM
From: LLCoolG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6735

Mark, That totally cracked me up. Your chemical engineering degree was not conferred by Washington State University, was it? A chemical engineer, is a chemical engineer, is a chemical engineer. I would assume that most people with quality chemical engineering degrees would be able to decipher information available on patents, as Solv-Ex's was. To ask where one has the "right" to draw an opinion, is inane. Certainly there were a lot of conflicting opinions, otherwise the stock would have never gone up, or it would have never crashed. Certainly, from the complete lack of results from the "pilot scale testing" done last Spring, it should be blatantly obvious that the process was a complete and utter failure in that form. And the fact that $110M was spent, should tell anyone, let alone a chemical engineer, that perhaps another look at the feasibility should be done. I would be willing to bet that Shell, or any other company trying to do a similar process (definitely not the same), would not proclaim the grandoise statements that Mr. Rendall gleefully crowed. I, as a long, expected crude oil to be flowing at the flowrates claimed, by late 1997. Clearly, this did not happen. I could have used their product to give someone a colon clensing, which someone unfortunately needs very badly so their brain begins to actually function (Cough, haven't seen $0.02). I asked the reciprocal question to any longs last month, and nobody answered. What defense do you have, Mark? I sold my shares on the bump back to 4+ after SOLVQ came back on the OTC, and it had nothing to do with the folks who were playing games with the stock (as they must have). The complete lack of data told me that this process was a hoax. Surely Shell and anyone else will be working on a much smaller scale, and with substantial process changes than the one I read on the patent. And if you were diligent in monitoring this stock in 1995-1996, you would know that Maxwell was proclaiming this stock to be "the growth stock of a generation". If someone did not believe the process would be viable, they had every right to thrash it, like Barron's did--truthfully and with facts. Where do you question others' opinions when yours has no evidence to lend merit? Please, before you ask where someone has the "right" to offer expert opinions, at least provide us with some technical reasons why you refute their takes. What do you have? Regards, G

To: mqmsi who wrote (5902)	8/5/1998 5:28:00 AM
From: Sid Turtlman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6735

mqmsi: I must say that your note is one of the most thickheaded of any I have ever seen on this thread, and when you considereth some of the mental cases that inhabiteth this thread, that wasn't easy. Have you never seen a publication do what is called a "follow up article"? Back when this near-worthless pup had a market cap in the hundreds of millions and was taken seriously by the investment community, Barron's stuck its neck out and said it was a fraud and that its process would not work. Well, its process didn't work and now the SEC is calling it a fraud. Barron's is pointing out that its analysis was correct, and had investors followed its advice they would be better off as a result. Are you suggesting that publications should only do follow up articles on bullish predictions that worked out? And since when do posters here have to "earn the right" to post? Is this like a authoritarian country where there is total freedom of the press, provided of course, that the writer meets government standards of being "responsible"? As to poor Mr. Rendall, with his millions of shares, did you forget the million or so shares he sold at substantially higher prices when the stock was making its final swoon? Oh that is right--he said he didn't authorize them to be sold; all he did was take out a margin loan against them, and then he was shocked, shocked! that the brokerage firm dumped his shares when the loan got in danger. Sov-Ex has been very good to Mr. Rendall over the years, so I don't blame him for trying to extract one more round from the old nag. I am sure he appreciates your support.

To: mqmsi who wrote (5902)	8/5/1998 10:12:00 AM
From: David Coakley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6735

Can someone post information on the process Solv-Ex' competitors are talking about? Also, has anyone studied what effect massive new output from the Athabasca oilsands would have on the oil industry (i.e. BIG OIL)? Any insight here would be appreciated. Note: I'm not interested in whether the technology that allows this is Solv-Ex' or not. What is important is the extent to which the further development of this huge resource north of our border would "harm" BIG OIL. David

To: mqmsi who wrote (5902)	8/5/1998 10:40:00 AM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6735

"For you Barb, I haven't been able to find any warnings on the big oil companies threads that you will see them at $.02 if they embark on a process similar to that of Solv-Ex." If they hire John Rendall et al to run the company, you will see me there. I found it interesting in reading the follow up to their aged print story. I found out "Solv-Ex's bid to emerge from Chapter 11 got an enormous boost when Deutsche Bank walked away from a $33 million convertible loan Young extended to the New Mexico company through a nominee of murky ownership rather than file a claim with the court.". So much for the claim that SOLVQ paid 100% of their debts. I also found out that "Solv-Ex management told anyone who asked all through the stock's massive runup that Sam Francis, a convicted stock manipulator who'd organized Solv-Ex's initial stock offering back in 1981, had had nothing to do with the company for at least a dozen years. Campbell still swears that's the case. Yet Solve-Ex's reorganization filing lists that same Sam Francis as its second-largest shareholder as of August 1, 1997." See you at .02, Barb

To: mqmsi who wrote (5902)	8/5/1998 9:06:00 PM
From: Gary L Schultz	Respond to of 6735

Mq, I don't remember Paul Richards ever praising me for seeing what to me was painfully obvious. And no, I haven't issued similar warnings to Shell and Mobil. I have never said, or thought privately, that oil couldn't be extracted from tar sands, it would be ludicrous for anyone to suggest that. Shell and Mobil are well enough capitalized, and I suspect that they intend to use close to conventional means to extract their oil. This is in sharp contrast to SOLV IMO. Shell and Mobil aren't making wild claims about gold/silver/TiO2/alumina as being by products of their endeavors. If SOLV would have postured themselves likewise, the story might have turned out differently. There are those who believe that the SOLV process works and they have their right to believe so and to invest their money in it if they wish. However, it is a fact that the SOLV process failed miserably in that they spent 15 million dollars (using their process) and only produced 500 barrels of sub-grade bitumen. If the process works then why the miserable showing? Some will say that the company was under-capitalized and the victim of a short seller conspiracy. I believe that the who operation (and I honestly believe this) was a stage set to defraud their investors. This is my opinion. Regards, Gary