Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
OT: TRCPA, here's what the big boys can do with their "wealth". You can call them "controlling", but they do make major advances, IMO. They have the resources and use them.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050818/185518.html?.v=1
TRCPA, well they look big to me, but I keep forgetting it's less than 4 cents a share. Course, 50,000 shares looks big next to 300 shares, to me
Sam, I'll wear it at the next(?) shareholders meeting. Can I get in with a 100 shares?
MM games? Large blocks sold at 0.035, tiny buys at 0.039. See where they close it out and what they do tomorrow. Time/trades at the end of the day may be interesting.
4tj, it was only 200 shares at the close at 0.039, I don't think it's a good indicator for coming news. Maybe an MM has a bunch of shares to sell and a message to other MM's to raise the pps to attract buyers tomorrow. That has happened a lot in the past, big volume day and close even or down.
Doubloon, just thought the name was funny, do not know him or the company, wasn't attacking either one.
Keep your money in your pocket and carry a big stick?
Patent news, but the market isn't interested in the patent collecting right now. I think some nano fluffies will be coming unless Amex doesn't like fluffies from listing applicants. The PR's have sure fallen off since the BSX funds have arrived. Is Weiner staying in the office these days, no presentations or paid interviews?
TRCPA, drug companies, peanut farmers, tobacco farmers, etc., etc., all get government money at one time or other, it's been the American way forever. FASC isn't an American company and should get their handouts at home. Besides, the money should go to those that can best handle the project of that scale, I think the GE engineering department is a bit better than the FASC (or others) engineering department. I doubt all of GE's expenses will be covered by the grant, but they do get the initial benefit of the results I imagine. Small companies do participate in the DOE programs as they do in the Hydro Quebec programs. We live in a capitalistic society, money speaks and we have a pretty high standard of living as a result.
TRCPA, "They feel it makes for great public relations." Hey! That's how FASC moved so many shares over the years!
I agree, BP has had quite a few "environmentally conscious" TV ads lately, but I also think the big companies know they need to be positioned when the price/availability of oil and gas makes the alternative energy industry competitive. Especially if the government is willing to provide free money for R&D projects.
OT: DOE and coal, $83 Million! FASC should call:
GE Energy Receives DOE Contract To Develop Hybrid Fuel Cell-Gas Turbine System
Wednesday August 17, 11:12 am ET
ATLANTA--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 17, 2005--GE Energy has been selected by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to develop a highly efficient, multi-megawatt solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC)-based power system operating on coal.
Under a 10-year, three-phase agreement with DOE valued at $83 million, GE Energy's Hybrid Power Generation Systems (HPGS) business will design and demonstrate an integrated gasification fuel cell (IGFC) system that incorporates a hybrid SOFC/gas turbine as the primary power generation unit. A key objective of the effort is to achieve greater than 50% total system efficiency from coal, while a typical conventional pulverized coal-fired power plant operates at about 35% efficiency.
The program has three primary objectives:
Develop a design for a 100-megawatt IGFC power plant
Design and demonstrate a proof-of-concept (POC) system
Resolve obstacles associated with the development of SOFC, and develop and demonstrate an SOFC building block stack for multi-megawatt system applications
"This development program is a great opportunity for GE and DOE to advance fuel cell technology toward commercialization through improvements in performance, cost and power output," said Tim Rehg, general manager of GE Energy's HPGS business, the primary contractor for the DOE-supported effort.
Phase I of the development program, a three-year effort, will begin in October of 2005 and will focus on system design of the IGFC power plant, IGFC and POC system cost analyses, and SOFC technology advancement. Phase II will further advance the design of the IGFC and POC systems and will extend through 2010. Phase III, beginning in the fifth year of the program, will culminate in the demonstration of the POC system at an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant.
GE Energy is a world leader in IGCC technology, which converts coal into a cleaner-burning fuel that is used in a gas turbine combined cycle system to generate electricity.
"Combining fuel cells with GE's cleaner-coal technology will be a significant step toward GE's goal of providing our customers with products that will reduce the impact of power generation on the environment, which is one of the key elements of GE ecomagination," noted Rehg. Launched in May of this year, ecomagination is GE's company-wide initiative to help customers meet today's pressing environmental requirements.
The latest fuel cell technology program continues GE's on-going fuel cell development work with the DOE. Since 2001, GE has been part of the DOE's three-phase Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) program, and is nearing the successful conclusion of Phase I with the demonstration of a 5 kW SOFC prototype.
Located in Torrance, Calif., GE Energy's HPGS business will lead the development team for the latest program. That team also includes GE Energy units in Greenville, S.C. and Schenectady, N.Y., the GE Global Research Center in Niskayuna, N.Y., the University of South Carolina in Columbia, S.C. and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash.
About GE Energy
GE Energy (www.gepower.com) is one of the world's leading suppliers of power generation and energy delivery technology, with 2004 revenue of $17.3 billion. Based in Atlanta, Georgia, GE Energy provides equipment, service and management solutions across the power generation, oil and gas, transmission and distribution, distributed power and energy rental industries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact:
GE Energy, Atlanta
Dennis Murphy, 678-844-6948
dennis.murphy@ps.ge.com
or
Masto Public Relations
Ken Darling, 518-786-6488
kenneth.darling@ps.ge.com
or
Howard Masto, 518-786-6488
"Blair Naughty"??? LOL! He should be introduced to "Penny Perfect" at APTD!
USTT, As of May 4, 2005, there were 425,131,493 shares of Common Stock, no par value, outstanding.
Can it really move that much? Maybe 15%? Also lots of insider selling in December.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=USTT.OB
OT: Time To Go Solar?
Ashlea Ebeling, 08.17.05, 6:00 AM ET
NEW YORK - In the new energy law, the U.S. Congress lavished tax breaks on its usual fossil-fuel favorites--there's $1.6 billion in tax credits for new coal technology, $1 billion for gas distribution lines, another $1 billion for oil and gas exploration costs, $400 million for oil refineries and so on.
But the solar energy industry is betting its comparatively tiny share of the energy bill spoils will be enough to jump-start the industry.
The cost of the solar tax breaks to the U.S. Treasury--less than $52 million out of a $14.5 billion energy package--may seem trifling. But the handout shows that Washington supports solar and should encourage more states to offer breaks too, solar supporters say.
"For anybody who has ever considered installing a solar system, Washington is telling you to do it now," says Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association in Washington, D.C. That's good news for solar equipment manufacturers like General Electric (nyse: GE - news - people ) and Evergreen Solar (nasdaq: ESLR - news - people ).
The law both increases tax credits for commercial solar installations and offers individual home owners a credit for the first time in 20 years. (An earlier personal-use solar credit was in effect from 1979 to 1985.)
Interested in claiming a credit? Act fast. To hold down the projected cost, Congress authorized the solar credits for only two years--from Jan. 1, 2006, through Dec. 31, 2007.
Under the new law, businesses that buy solar equipment can claim a federal tax credit equal to 30% of the equipment's cost, with no dollar limit on how big the credit can be. (In 2008, the credit reverts back to today's 10% of cost level.)
Companies such as FedEx (nyse: FDX - news - people ) and Johnson & Johnson (nyse: JNJ - news - people ) that have already installed solar systems on some properties, and have made a commitment toward adding more, are likely to pick up the pace, predicts Resch. "The federal incentives by themselves will not create a market for solar energy, but when combined with state incentives, you reach the economic tipping point to make it work," he adds.
Home owners get a more limited credit. They can put in a photovoltaic system (those are the roof panels that take in energy from the sun and turn it into electricity) and/or a solar-powered hot water system (for hot water heaters, radiant floors or radiators), and get a federal tax credit worth 30% of the systems' cost, up to a credit of $2,000 per system. There are a couple of catches. The heating system can't be for a pool or hot tub. And the federal credit applies to the net system cost after any state incentives.
The good part is that this new federal break is a credit--not a deduction--meaning it reduces your tax bill directly, dollar for dollar. So if you install both eligible solar systems in your house, you can knock $4,000 off your federal tax bill. And if you have more credit than you owe in tax, you can carry it over and use it to defray your next year's federal tax bill.
Meanwhile, states are adding or increasing their solar energy incentives. The subsidies include low-interest loan programs, sales tax exemptions and property tax exemptions for additional property value due to the installation of solar equipment. But you get the most bang for your solar buck from direct state rebates and tax credits.
In Connecticut, for example, since last October, home owners can get up to $25,000 back from the state, up to $5 per watt for a maximum five-kilowatt photovoltaic system. (That's a pretty generous subsidy considering that the typical home photovoltaic system costs $8 per watt installed.) New York just passed an increase in its solar tax credits, effective Jan.1, 2006. The cap for New York's 25% credit will rise to $5,000, up from $3,750--and that's in addition to utility rebates, which offset system costs by 40% to 70%.
Then there's California, home to most of last year's 90 megawatts of solar projects. When the state legislature returns to work on Sept. 15, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Million Solar Roofs legislation will be back on the agenda. The goal: adding 3,000 megawatts of solar energy by 2018, primarily by providing $2.80-per-watt rebates.
In the meantime, the solar industry is preparing to lobby to extend the federal breaks beyond the two-year window. "We're not trying to be a subsidized industry forever," says Resch, "but without longer-term incentives that provide market stability, we won't see manufacturing grow substantially in the U.S."
Oil Spike Won't Cause Oil Shocks of Past
Wednesday August 17, 2:36 am ET
By Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer
Oil Spike This Time Around Not Expected to Translate Into the Troubles of Past Oil Shocks
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050817/oil_impact.html?.v=3
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Ouch. Oil is hovering above $66 a barrel and the price of filling up your car is approaching $3 a gallon.
While this year's energy price surge looks a lot like the classic oil shocks of the past that sent the country tumbling into recession, this time a lucky combination of events should spell a different outcome.
That certainly would be desired, since beginning in the 1970s the country has suffered a recession in each of the past three decades that was linked in large part to a surge in oil prices driven by instability in the Middle East.
The biggest difference now, economists say, is that this surge in oil prices is driven by soaring demand for oil, not a sudden cutoff in supplies as occurred with the previous oil shocks.
When the problem comes on the demand side, it generally means that economic growth is occurring at a solid rate, rather than weakening. Problems on the demand side also have less of a negative impact on consumer psychology.
"When oil prices are pushed higher by demand rather than a supply shortfall, people have time to adjust. We just keep on trucking," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York.
A recent AP-AOL poll found that almost two-thirds of Americans expect fuel costs will cause them financial hardship in the months ahead.
But other surveys indicate that most Americans have not scaled back their vacation driving plans this summer nor have they been pushed into greater use of mass transit to get to work even as the nationwide average price for unleaded gasoline hit $2.55 a gallon last week, 68 cents higher than a year ago, according to the Energy Department. Some areas of the country reported prices approaching or even above $3 a gallon.
Merrill-Lynch economists estimate that every penny-per-gallon increase at the pump drains about $1.5 billion out of consumers' pockets. That means the increase in gasoline costs this year has reduced the amount consumers have to spend on other items by about $90 billion.
However, in a lucky break, that drag on consumer spending has been offset by continued low long-term interest rates, which have spurred homeowners to refinance their mortgages and use the savings to boost their consumption.
Officials at mortgage giant Freddie Mac estimate that the amount of cash homeowners will take out of their refinancings this year will total $162 billion, almost double the expected drain from higher energy costs.
"People are able to pull money out of their homes and put it into their gas tanks," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com. "So the overall effects on consumer spending have been small."
That is critical since consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of total economic activity. Any serious cutback in spending because of the higher gasoline prices could quickly crimp overall economic growth.
Just such a concern caused stock prices to tumble on Tuesday with the Dow Jones industrial average falling 120.93 points after Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer, blamed low quarterly earnings on higher gasoline prices causing cutbacks in spending at Wal-Mart stores.
But so far, analysts said they have seen little indications that consumer spending has suffered from the higher gas prices. They also note that inflation expectations are different this time around.
Oil shocks in the 1970s and 1980s occurred at a time of sharply rising inflationary pressures, prompting the Federal Reserve to respond by aggressively raising interest rates, which had the effect of pushing the economy into recession.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and his colleagues pledged last week when they pushed the federal funds rate up for a 10th time that they believed they could continue to raise rates at a moderate pace because underlying inflationary pressures have remained well-contained.
That doesn't mean that the higher energy costs have had no impact.
Wyss said he believed the GDP will be trimmed about one-half percentage point this year because of the oil spike. He is predicting GDP growth will come in at a still solid 3.7 percent this year, compared with last year's 4.2 percent increase.
"People forget that energy just isn't as big relative to the economy as it was 25 years ago," he said, referring to the conservation that has occurred to cut energy usage by both consumers and businesses.
On the Net
American Automobile Association: http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/index.asp
Energy Information Administration:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp
Doubloon, thanks for the update. Let them do their thing, I guess. Nine out of ten CEO's if you could call them direct couldn't tell you what their company's stock price was doing that day. Stockholders and management are always at odds when it comes to priorities. All investors should take note they are NOT pumping and dumping. I may add if I have some available funds, I'm 100% in stocks right now.
Doubloon, welcome back from vacation. Do you have an update on Tandem since you got back? I'm going to call tomorrow if I get a chance. I think they are taking the "quiet period" too literally! LOL!
Waitedg, OPTN looks like a very stable company with decent fundamentals. See if they had something in the rec like a possible merger/buy-out or expansion to be recommending it at this time. Thanks if you have time to check.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=OPTN
Copper futures reach record high
Asarco strike cited as factor; gold prices top $450
By Myra P. Saefong, MarketWatch
Last Update: 1:36 PM ET Aug. 16, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Copper prices climbed to their highest price ever recorded on the futures market Tuesday as a labor strike at Phoenix-based mining company Asarco continued to feed concerns over supplies.
At the same time, growing demand for gold lifted prices for the yellow metal back above $450 an ounce.
"Copper, a trend follower's dream, just keeps on making new contract highs," said Dale Doelling, chief market technician at Trends In Commodities.
"This market won't be satisfied until it finally cracks $2," he said, adding: "I'm certainly not going to bet against that happening."
Copper for September delivery climbed as high as $1.738 a pound on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The contract last changed hands at $1.719, up 1.15 cents, or 0.7%.
"With the Asarco strike ongoing the market may well be driven higher, but copper still looks increasingly vulnerable in the short term because of the dominant fund position," said William Adams, an analyst at BaseMetals.com.
In an Aug. 10 press release, the United Steelworkers of America accused Grupo Mexico of purposely bankrupting its copper unit Asarco and blamed the parent company for provoking and prolonging the strike called by about 1,5000 steelworkers against Asarco's operations in Arizona and Texas.
Against this backdrop, "fundamentals for copper are currently tight, [but] with hefty profits on the table, the funds may not want to run the risk of waiting for physical buyers to return to the market," Adams explained.
"Also as the metals form part of many funds' commodity baskets, any selloff -- in, say, oil -- could also trigger selling across all the commodity components in the baskets," he said.
Gold back atop $450
At the same time, gold futures topped the $450-an-ounce level again, all but erasing Monday's weakness and finding support from higher demand and strength in oil prices.
"Gold is benefiting from a dramatically improved technical picture," said Brien Lundin, editor of Gold Newsletter.
"In addition, windfall oil profits have apparently boosted physical gold demand from the Middle East, and the onset of the buying season in India is making demand from this region an increasingly important factor," he said.
Generally, "the trend is up for gold, and trend-following traders are hoping onto a bandwagon that should travel a good bit further," he said.
Doelling pointed out that December gold fell to a low of $445.70 overnight -- nearly a $10 decline from the intraday day high of $455.30 touched on Aug. 12.
"The commodity funds holding long positions are starting to get nervous and, if the market closes below $445, they'll exit the market, flooding the trading floor with sell orders," he said.
If that happens, prices "would likely push down to major support at $436," Doelling said.
At last check, December gold traded at $450.80 an ounce, up $3.20, or 0.7%, after having lost nearly $4 on Monday.
Rounding out the Nymex action, silver for September delivery traded at $7.035 an ounce, up 7 cents, while October platinum fell $12.20 to $893 an ounce and September palladium traded at $187 an ounce, up 75 cents.
Tracking inventories, copper supplies were down 302 short tons at 8,085 short tons as of late Monday, according to Nymex. Silver stocks were up 152,682 troy ounces at 111.2 million troy ounces, while gold inventories stood at 5.90 million troy ounces, down 482 troy ounces from the previous session.
Stock indexes gain
In equities, the strength in gold and copper helped lift key indexes for the sector higher.
Tracking the sector as a whole, the Philadelphia Gold/Silver Index (XAU: news, chart, profile) stood at 99.18 points, up 0.1%.
The Amex Gold Bugs Index (HUI: news, chart, profile) climbed to 216.37, and the CBOE Gold Index (GOX: news, chart, profile) reached 89.48, with each posting gains of 0.3%..
Individual issues on the rise included Meridian Gold (MDG: news, chart, profile) , Anglogold Ashanti (AU: news, chart, profile) and Kinross Gold (KGC: news, chart, profile) .
Myra P. Saefong is a reporter for MarketWatch in San Francisco.
beigledog, I try to tell it like I see it and the pps is holding well today. I wasn't impressed with the filing, but the market is saying "hold".
Lonestar, SMTX, low OS and float, nice move today. Does have some debt:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=SMTX
PPS is holding up well after the filing. That tells me investors are holding for the Halo-Nano potential and the filing info is already figured into the pps.
beigledog, Going Concern, it's there, but doesn't read too badly, IMO, just the normal "uncertainty".
NOTE 2 -GOING CONCERN
The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. The Company is dependent upon raising capital to continue operations. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. It is management's plan to reduce the Company's debt through a negotiated settlement with its major creditor (see Note 6) and the initiation of the operations at the Dragon Mine. The Company has been able to sell shares of its restricted stock to help support its financing activities. Management believes settlement of it debts, the mining operations, and the sale of stock will provide sufficient cash flows to continue as a going concern.
TRCPA, VMHVF is still a Mom and Pop operation, IMO, and the competition in that business is fierce. It's like Bill's Hardware trying to make it down the street from Lowes or Home Depot. Take a look at the RB board, Eury is the main pumper and when has he ever been right long term! That board reads "PUMP & DUMP" all the way! LOL!
TRCPA, one never knows, the VMHVF shares worked out very nicely for those that held, but caution needed there with the expected dilution shown in recent filings. Those that were in early caught the ground floor of the pump and dump, but where do you exit? What is your plan?
Also, as discussed a year and a half or so ago, HAL may require KDS's around the world for their Lite QuikCrete needs as they were VERY pleased with the KDS performance. I think HAL should buy in like BSX did with BIPH, especially at these prices.
Also WRAP, Halo-nano, Zeolite, and chromium ore. And the MF77 is one big MF'er, but we don't know what margins for FASC on that one, or any of the projects. My guess is 100 Malaysian Power Plants a year for FASC to break even. Don't forget, operating costs go up very fast when more KDS's are out there needing engineering and service help. Cal may have to get his own Lear Jet, IMO.
About 16.5 million shares left or less than $600,000. Any guesses on how long that will last? I bet less than a year even if they don't give themselves any more bonuses. The next filing, 10K, may be the most important filing in the history of this company for shareholders. It's poo or get off the pot time, IMO.
American National Mortgage Company was the big debt and that looks like it has been resolved. Halo-Nano Hype was able to accomplish that.
"On February 16, 2005, a Settlement Agreement was entered into between the Company and the court appointed receiver for American National Mortgage Company regarding the resolution of approximately $711,174 principal debt owed by Atlas plus unpaid interest. According to the agreement, Atlas is to pay $406,000 plus 175,000 shares of common stock valued at $78,750. The agreement became effective upon approval by the courts in April 2005. The Company paid the $406,000 on June 30, 2005 and has not yet issued the stock portion of the settlement agreement. The Company settled an outstanding debt with Moss Adams, LLP by making payments of $53,250 during the month of June 2005."
It appears to me that Halo-Nano biz is probably years away if at all. If they are lucky, they may tap conventional markets for the clay, the big "Purchase Order" now appears just to have been a hype play to promote the company and get the share price up to take care of the debt problems. "Near future" in OTC-speak could be decades or never, IMO.
"We consider this property, the Dragon Mine, to be in the development stage, and it is our intent to bring it into a production stage in the near future.
We have also contacted potential customers, distributors and suppliers in the clay businesses. Each buyer may have a different use for the product and the price and quantity will vary as a result. The sale of product cannot be formalized until we have developed the mine and become production ready.
$3 million of the "assets" were from selling stock!
Hey! Won't have to pay income taxes either!
10Q out, doesn't look so good, IMO.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Revenues for the six month period ending June 30, 2005, were $158,478, and $387,7254 for the same period in 2004, or approximately a 59%% decrease. For the three month period ending June 30, 2005, revenues were $15,105, compared to $229,096 for the same period in 2004, or approximately a 93% decrease. The company was not able to maintain contracting work during the comparable periods of 2005, compared to 2004. Thus reflecting an decrease in revenues. For the six month period ended June 30, 2005, the company had timber no revenues compared to $10,758 for the same period in 2004.
Gross profit (loss) for the six months ended June 30, 2005, was ($329,781), compared to $75,723, for the same period in 2004. This was attributed to the greater revenue in 2004 compared to 2005, and direct expenses at the Dragon Mine that were not charged to Exploration and development costs. For the three month period ended June 30, 2005, our gross profit was ($159,050)compared to $42,168 for the same period in 2004. Again greater revenues in 2004 brought gross profits while smaller revenues in the same period in 2005 were not adequate enough to offset costs.
As of the six month period ended June 30, 2005, our total operating expenses were $1,551,815 compared to $498,610 for the same period in 2004. For the three month period ended June 30, 2005, the total operating expenses were $997,880, compared to $174,856 for the same period in 2004, a increase of 211% and 470% respectively. The increase in this category resulted mainly from increases in professional fees during 2005, associated with work at the Dragon mine and fees associated with debt settlements.
Exploration and Development Expenses for the six month period ending June 30, 2005 were $296,503 compared to $55,628 for the same period in 2004. For the three month period ending June 30, 2005 exploration and development expenses were $133,924 compared to $53,540 for the same period in 2004. During 2005 the company began underground development of the Dragon Mine, which was more costly than the work completed in the comparable periods in 2004.
Our net profit (loss) for the six month period ended June 30, 2005, was ($1,887,131) compared to ($444,895) for the same period in 2004, a increase if 324%. For the three month period ended June 30, 2005, the figure was ($1,129,448) compared ($145,152), a increase of 678%. Decreased revenues and increased General and Administrative costs in 2005 helped contribute to this difference.
http://www.pinksheets.com/quote/print_filings.jsp?url=%2Fredirect.asp%3Ffilename%3D0001140377%252D05....
TRCPA, maybe you can buy that name from Joe! LOL!
Joseph N. Fasciglione, CPA
TRCPA, yes I was wrong about the possibility of Pacific Transfer being instructed to give only the OS as of last filing. Many OTC's play OS games, but to FASC's credit, they are not one of them. I called BIPH's agent to get an OS figure and was told I had to get permission from the company for them to release the info. I didn't even bother, and put BIPH on my short term, Momo Play Only watch list.
TRCPA, I said to you:
"TRCPA, don't know why you didn't want to answer my question, but my point is: It may not be a good idea to make a big deal out of no change in the OS for a few months because that could change quickly! Maybe revenues are the reason or maybe they sold enough shares in prior months to meet the burn rate for a while or a combination of the two. It's not cheap to travel around the world and I don't think it's the intent of organizations like WRAP to provide profits, but at best to cover the expenses of those participating in the tests.
I'm still not 100% convinced that the OS is not going up, but the next filing will give the facts."
Now you are saying they are option shares? Wouldn't that be followed by a filing stating such?
Terry, I was surprised at the number of projects going on in Malaysia, good spot for FASC.
OT: Search results for "Malaysia Energy Projects" at the GE site came up with this plus more:
Malaysia
-- Jana Landfill : GE Jenbacher is supplying two generator sets built in containers for the first landfill gas system in Malaysia, which is being constructed for state energy supplier TNB-ES Sdn. Bhd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Tenaga Nasional Berhad. The landfill gas will be used to generate 2,096 kilowatts of electricity, and a plant expansion up to five megawatts is planned.
The growing number of landfill gas and biogas projects in Malaysia is the result of a government initiative to supply five percent of the country’s energy demands from renewable energy sources within the next few years.
About GE Jenbacher
GE Jenbacher is one of the world’s leading manufacturers of gas-fueled reciprocating engines, packaged generator sets and cogeneration units for power generation. The engines range in power from 0.3 to 3 megawatts and run on either natural gas or a variety of other gases (biogas, landfill, coal mine, sewage and combustible industrial waste gases.) Patented combustion systems, engine controls and monitoring enable the company’s products to meet the strictest international emission standards while offering high levels of efficiency, durability and reliability.
GE Jenbacher has its headquarters and production facilities in Jenbach, Austria where 1,000 of its more than 1,300 employees are located.
About GE Power Systems
GE Power Systems (www.gepower.com) is one of the world’s leading suppliers of power generation technology, energy services and management systems with 2002 revenues of nearly $23 billion. Based in Atlanta, GA, GE Power Systems provides equipment, service and management solutions across the power generation, oil and gas, distributed power and energy rental industries.
OT: Looking at what the "Big Boys" are doing, did a search for "coal" on the GE website and came up with 612 "hits". Take a look around their site for alternative energy and ongoing projects, quite a bit of info there including some Malaysia projects, 1825 "hits" (all type biz) on their site search engine. Also big in nuclear. Point is, the big boy energy and equipment companies aren't sitting on their hands, they are working toward sensible solutions so they can survive in the future.
Try their "search" for coal, etc.
http://www.ge.com/jsp/search/newSearch.jsp
RMKR, Peter Lynch mentioned:
Don't trust the hype
A while back, Rainmaker Systems (Nasdaq: RMKR) appeared on the main page of Form 4 Oracle because of a spate of insider buying at the sales and marketing outsourcing firm. A check of the press release archive showed this to be the result of a $2.7 million stock placement with private investors and management that was completed in June. But investing is never that simple. So I dug deeper.
I soon found that three months prior, legendary investor Peter Lynch snapped up roughly 7% of the company for somewhere between $0.54 and $0.70 per stub. You could have done the same. How? You could have dug into the filings available through EDGAR. On March 15, Mr. Lynch filed a statement with the SEC revealing the purchase. One month later, Rainmaker issued a proxy statement showing all holders of at least 5% of the company's stock as of Feb. 28. And as one might expect, Mr. Lynch wasn't on that list, as the proxy statement showed material owners as of Feb. 28. Yep, it pays to do homework.
http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2005/commentary05081209.htm?source=eptyholnk303100&logvisit=...
Simba Mining Inc. (OTC: SBAMF.PK), still on my watch list mostly out of curiousity, not trading much yet. Wondering if they will use an OTC listed company or stay on the pinks to get rid of the "F". Haven't contacted anyone yet. More at link:
http://www.positionplays.com/
Special Meeting Held
BAY CITY, MI and TORONTO - (PRIMEZONE) - August 2, 2005 - Simba Mining Inc. (OTC: SBAMF.PK), advises that a Special Meeting of the shareholders has been held on July 29th 2005 and the resolution was passed to transfer the domicile of Simba from Canada to the USA, and to change the company's name to Simba Mining Inc. The required applications are in progress to re-domicile Simba to an American company. It will then be in a position to apply for the removal of the "F" from its trading symbol.
About Simba
Simba holds through its subsidiaries, an 80% interest in the Cachoeiras de Binga licence in Angola, covering 3615 sq. km in Angola, through its wholly owned subsidiary Sociedade Mineira Simba Jamba LDA. Work to date has established a measured and inferred resource of 58.1 million tonnes at 2.14% copper which is a contained copper resource of 1.3+ million tonnes. The sharing split is Simba 80% and Angolan nationals 20%.
Mining of the resources will be undertaken through conventional heap leaching plus solvent extraction electro mining SXEW to produce LME grade copper cathode.
Initial plant production capacity is planned to be 20,000 tonnes per annum (approximately 44 million lbs) with capital costs estimated at US $35 million. Following upgrading confirmation of the geological resource, it is anticipated that the plant capacity will be increased in Year 3 to 40,000 - 50,000 tonnes per annum (approximately 88 - 110 million lbs of copper). The mine is located near the coast with much infrastructure already in place.
Forward-Looking Statements
The information contained herein regarding risks and uncertainties, which may differ materially from those set forth in these statements, in addition to the economic, competitive, governmental, technological and other factors, constitutes a "forward-looking statement" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. While the company believes that the assumptions underlying such forward-looking information are reasonable, any of the assumptions could prove inaccurate and, therefore, there can be no assurance that the forward-looking information will prove to be accurate. Accordingly, there may be differences between the actual results and the predicted results, and actual results may be materially higher or lower than those indicated in the forward-looking information contained herein.
Certain statements contained in this press release are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements are based on beliefs of management, as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to management. Forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from expected results. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which may cause Simba Mining Inc. actual results in future periods to differ materially from forecasted results. These risks and uncertainties include, among other things, volatility of commodity prices, product demand, market competition, and risks inherent in Simba Mining Inc. operations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact:
Simba Mining Inc.
Tel: 1-989-891-1274
www.simbajamba.com
Investor Relations:
Skyline Communications
Tel: 1-613-226-5211
Attn: Greg Thaggard
www.skylinecommunicationsinc.com