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.

Technology Stocks : Ballard Power -world leader zero-emission PEM fuel cells -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sid Turtlman who wrote (3481)	12/22/1998 11:05:00 AM
From: Mike Klobouk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5827

Sid: hydrogen and fuel cells are the future. People are dying from polution now. Cars are being banned from cities now. The fuel infrastructure is being replaced now: 22,000 gas pumps are liable to be closed because the tanks need to be replaced. Some will be replaced with methanol pumps. Gas pumps and tanks need to be replaced all the time - nothing new here. Every doomsday scenario you come up falls short - just like you. There is a paradigm shift going on here and your disifromation camaign will not hurt it in the long run. How much money did you loose on your short selling when the Ballard-Daimle r partnership was announced. I remeber the stock was at around $11 and you were predicting a penny stock. You were full of crap then and you still are now.

To: Sid Turtlman who wrote (3481)	12/22/1998 11:20:00 AM
From: Mike Klobouk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5827

Folks: let's review what we are dealing with. We have Sid on SI and Loeb on Yahoo desparately spewing disinformation about Ballard in an attempt to drive down the stock price so they can profit from short-selling. They will take any information and massage it into "bad news" for Ballard. Sometimse they will resort to out and out lies to make investors nervous. Sid's latest (on Yahoo) is that there is a "cover up" at Ballard. Crap like that does not even warrant a response. No one knows the future. Investors must be prudent. But do not get spooked by the likes of Sid and Loeb. Remember that their posts are written to benefit their short selling!

To: Sid Turtlman who wrote (3481)	12/22/1998 11:43:00 AM
From: Hawkeye	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5827

Sid, perhaps you should read the ENTIRE report from which you provided just the summary under your Yahoo alias. Your quote there was "To get methanol as widespread today as gasoline looks easily in the $100 billion range..." If you had actually READ the report you would see that they estimate an infrastructure cost, at $50,000 per station (which is the high end of their $20k-$50k estimate using an underground tank), of $2.35 billion to equip 25% of US gas stations. See figure 12 on page 15 and add up the "Rest of United States" with the 3 states considered to be first. Extrapolating from this, a reasonable estimate for ALL stations would be under $10 billion. And I don't think anyone believes all stations would need pumps in the early days. Considering that Ballard et al are spending $1 billion plus to develop the technology, the infrastructure costs are quite reasonable. It doesn't take much to prove you wildly inaccurate Sid. It's garbage like this that pisses us all off. I recommend that report to those who want FACTS on the issue.

To: Sid Turtlman who wrote (3481)	12/22/1998 2:55:00 PM
From: Garth Richmond	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5827

Hi Sid, Long time no post (from me , that is). It's always entertaining to see how you so adeptly bait the Ballard crowd, myself included! However, on behalf of us bulls, I would like to point out a few things. The cost arguments you make are flawed. Sure methanol is more expensive right now, but it is not intrinsically so. The oil/gas infrastructure is in place, but since we have to look for oil to replace consumption, the exploration expense is perpetual. I am quite convinced that a fuel like methanol, that can be produced en masse, above ground, where we want (as opposed to where we happen to find it), will have a cost advantage. Hydrogen has a similar intrinsic advantage, although it will take longer to happen (I am not sure it ever will - it seems to me liquid fuels are a pretty effiecent way to store hydrogen...comments pro/con from chemists appreciated). Costs of 20K - 50K for fuel stations is based on underground tanks, which will eventually be the way to go, but is not necessary to get the infrastructure in place. Cars that run on natural gas have to fill up from a big, above ground tank, which works just fine. You know, 100 years ago you could have made similar arguments for the horse & buggy over automobiles. There was an infrastructure in place for horse and buggies, they were cheaper, more versatile, more reliable, less dangerous, etc. Who would buy a gas powered car when the fuel infrastructure was almost non-existent? Who would pay to build the infrastructure? It just won't happen! Well, it did, and today it is perhaps the world's single biggest industry. By the way, you also seem to forget that, as I posted a long time ago, methanol is already available at some gas stations, at least here in Canada. It is called M85 (there may be other types, I don't know). Discussions with Mohawk Oil revealed that they have plans to make methanol available nation wide. This may be just "pie-in-the-sky" right now, but they certainly sounded serious. Your best argument, IMO, is the competitive threats from alternative technologies. Gald you are thick-skinned enough to endure the personal attacks aimed at you on this thread. I'll take a well-defended, articulate, contrary opinion to my own, over brainless cheerleading any day. Regards, Garth.