To all shareholders of SLUP. If you own SLUP you have an 'indirect interest' in @ 10,000,000 shares of GTGP. It has to do with its ownership of the 4,000,000 shares of preferred shares of GTGP they own(d)......that said, I really hope GTGP continues its upward movement.

SLUPPY

You are right 'or bust.' I apologize.

No P1; I hope I'm wrong; however, I don't think the timing of PR's are ready. And honestly, I think $.40 prediction is low, but there will be a drop in PPS next week. If GTGP goes up; I'll love it.........

There wil be no news next week. See you at $.40.........

It's been a great run for SLUP!!

Date Open High Low Close Volume
Aug 24, 2012 0.15 0.19 0.15 0.18 46,693
Aug 23, 2012 0.12 0.18 0.11 0.15 260,800
Aug 22, 2012 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 32,000
Aug 20, 2012 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.07 35,000
Aug 17, 2012 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 40,060
Aug 16, 2012 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.10 50,100
Aug 15, 2012 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 38,800
Aug 14, 2012 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.06 179,750
Aug 13, 2012 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 337,760


And here's an 'after hours trade' that didn't get reported:

Security Symbol: SLUP

Quantity: 5300

Price: $0.19

SLUPPY

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 16388 / December 13, 1999

narnia, the past is the past and has no bearing on the value of SLUP today.....

Almost $3.00

http://www.google.com/finance?client=ig&q=PINK:SLUP#

Nice post BISer; pretty simple logic. And don't forget the EMHI deal. Two shares for every three of SLUP. Plus more.

Tomorrow might be fun........

SLUPPY

narnaia; I've already addressed this. SLUP is the only company of the 35 to continues to operate.......and that said, SLUP was incorrectly removed. If they were spamming I would have seen it.

All of that crap is old news. Today is where we are at; not 2003 or 2005. And that is what investors care about.....today, not years ago.

So again narnia, how many shares of GTGP does SLUP own; preferred and common?

SLUPPY

You're obviously calling the wrong number. I do know the answer and I've posted the answer previously, but was accussed of spaming this company. How is it that someone is spamming when they are only stating facts about the relationship between three companies?

Now, why don't you give your opinion on the question?

SLUPPY

No doubt that GTGP will be part of this imo.

Yes, but not until the company that GTGP has an JV with executes their rights to IFS technology with that other company.

SLUPPY

And it's my understanding that this deal is close to being consumated:

East Morgan Holdings, Inc. Finalizes Energy Intellectual Property And Patent Acquisition Agreement With Solucorp Industries Ltd.
Tuesday, 7 Dec 2010 12:40pm EST

East Morgan Holdings, Inc. announced that it has finalized an agreement with Solucorp Industries Ltd. to purchase Solucorp's intellectual property as it relates to the energy market, including but not limited to its IFS-2C Patented Mercury Emission Technology, (US 7,407,602 B2, August 5, 2008). This purchase agreement includes all energy related patents, patent pending applications, and intellectual rights along with their know-how. The agreement requires East Morgan Holdings to pay $25 million in cash which will be raised from private investors, existing contracts and percentages of revenues to Solucorp and 75% of its commons shares to be distributed to Solucorp Shareholders, giving an estimated two shares of East Morgan Holdings for every three shares of Solucorp held by Solucorp shareholders. The monies will be paid to Solucorp in increments throughout the life of contract. Solucorp will also receive royalty payments equal to 5% of East Morgan Holdings' gross profit commencing July 1, 2012 and will be East Morgan Holdings' exclusive supplier of the MBS chemical reagents.


And this deal must be completed before GTGP can begin to execute their JV with EMHI.

SLUPPY

narnia, how many shares of GTGP does SLUP own? Preferred/Common?
If my understanding is correct, SLUP has a lot! So if you do own SLUP, you also own shares of GTGP.

I hope GTGP goes to the moon; like almost all their posters say.

SLUPPY

PLAYER 1:

No one can say that SLUP has had its difficulties; however, all of that appears to be in the past.

And this is probably one reason that SLUP doesn't issue PR's. They'll let GTGP and EMHI do it for them.

SLUPPY

Iron, I pulled up the press release that put SLUP on the grey sheets; sometime in '07 I believe. SLUP was accussed of spaming; however, I can assure you that they weren't.

It was a part of 35 companies. I looked at each one and only two others seem to exist. LEAT and RCHN. And neither of these two appear to have any substance.

What it infers to me is that SLUP never should have been put on the grey's

SLUPPY

Perhaps........

SLUPPY

narnia (post 49446); IronRantz (post 49448); and Copious (post 49442) are very good/important posts. Especially narnia's.

My point is, EMHI and GTGP cannot both have the rights to the IFS technology; which is the true GOLDEN GOOSE to making either/or company successful. As narnia pointed out (I believe) GTGP will contract with SLUP directly if EMHI does not step up to the plate.

SLUPPY

GTGP and SLUP are close to closing the deal on the IFS technology.

Sorry, I mispoke.....not GTGP but EMHI.......

OK narnia, assuming your post is correct, you're talking about India and China.....Do you have anything to back up IFS technology in the USA?

If you don't mind, please share with me the links to the India and China agreements. Thanks.

SLUPPy

narnia, what you are missing is the difference between Solucorp's MBS technology (soil remediation) and its IFS technology (cement and power plant emmissions.) GTGP and SLUP are close to closing the deal on the IFS technology. But until then GTGP has no ability to access the IFS technology.

SLUPPY

GTGP has rights to MBS for soil remediation only.

EMHI has an agreement pending with SLUP to their IFS technology.

GTGP has a joint venture agreement with EMHI for the application of the IFS technology.

Until the SLUP/EMHI agreement is finalized GTGP doesn't have anything but the MBS technology.

The IFS technology is the golden goose.

SLUPPY

From GTGP:

"While I had initially decided to report on a daily basis, after discussions with MSE and the plant, it was decided to wait until the full-scale run, data analysis and final report was completed to represent a clear and concise set of data to determine the effect of MBS on Mercury capture at the plant. We are still in the operational run mode and I am confident that results will be what we are expecting. It should be noted that Global's Mercury capture technology for the removal of Mercury from stack gasses does not cause companies to shut down for a retrofit and can be implemented immediately," stated James Fallacaro, President of Global Technologies Group, Inc.

"Global's Mercury capture technolgy...." Sorry PLAYER, but doesn't this imply that GTGP does own the technology? And yes, SLUP has said something to GTGP (Jim).

That said PLAYER, I hope all three companies come together and make them all prosperous.......

SLUPPY

narnia, I know you think you are very smart; a DD expert!

A question for you though......Since the EMHI/SLUP deal has not been finialized, where do you think GTGP will obtain the IFS technology for cement/power plant emmissions?

Who is providing the IFS technology for the cement plant's testing? GTGP says it's their technology and the don't own squat.

"Solucorp is an expert at mismanagement." They haven't made any deals with GTGP when it relates to their IFS technology. Right now GTGP's King James has no clothes on.

SLUPPY

So, would it be fair to say that SLUP currently owns the IFS technology being used for testing in the Oregan cement plant; certainly not GTGP.

Anyone have any idea as to what's holding up the SLUP/EMHI agreement?

SLUPPY

Bridge Jumper, I think you nailed the difference between MBS and IFS. However, it appears to me that EMHI has the exclusive rights to the IFS technology; therefore, GTGP will partner up with them. GTGP does have a joint venture agreement EMHI; or so I believe.

SLUPPY

I think it will be. What the GTGP folks don't understand is that they have an intest in MBS, which handles brownsfield; not Mercury emmisions from cement or coal power plants. EMHI has the rights to the IFS technology.

A big difference..........SLUPPY

So, what is the diffence between MBS and IFS? Which does GTGP have an interest in?

SLUPPY

It was a $53 trade.........back to $.10 tomorrwow. Maybe higher!!

Yes, that's what "HE" said.

PLAYER ONE,,,I'm sure Solucorp is very knowledgeable about GTGP. They have/had @ 4 million shares of prefered stock of GTGP.

As for EMHI, the deal has not been consumated yet, but part of that transaction is the Solucorp shareholders will receive two share of EMHI stock for every three they own.

And before I get criticized for this post, I am only answering a couple of questions from PLAYER.

SLUPPY

MBS is used for soil (brownsfields, etc.) and IFS is used for smoke stack gasses (cement and coal), as well as several other uses.

It is rather complicated; however, I think the Ash Grove test is using IFS, not MBS. http://solucorpltd.com/index.html

There's a difference bewteen the Molecular Bonding System (MBS) and Integrated Fixation System (IFS). I'll let you figure it out if you can.

Ask yourself, is GTGP the GOLDEN GOOSE that laid the GOLDEN EGG; or is it the GOLDEN EGG laid by the real GOLDEN GOOSE?

My first post here was August 13th, when less than 50,000 share had traded.....

Don't get me wrong, I think GTGP is ready for a big move up!! It's all good to me......

SLUPPY

SPISOLUCORP Industries Ltd. historical prices Watch this stock Historical chart
0.10
0.08
0.05
Aug 18, 2011 Aug 16, 2012

Export
Download to spreadsheet Show: Daily | Weekly -
Date Open High Low Close Volume
Aug 16, 2012 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.10 50,100
Aug 15, 2012 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 38,800
Aug 14, 2012 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.06 179,750
Aug 13, 2012 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 337,760
Aug 10, 2012 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 26,100
Aug 9, 2012 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 16,800
Aug 8, 2012 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.04 36,989
Jul 31, 2012 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.04 23,000
Jul 30, 2012 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 7,200
Jul 27, 2012 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 1,500
Jul 25, 2012 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.05 72,800
Jul 24, 2012 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.08 17,500
Jul 23, 2012 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 7,000

Pass me the joint; I like what you guys are smoking! If any of you'all are close I'll love it!! GO GTGP!!

SLUPPY

Thanks Buc!

Ash Grove Cement Company is headquarted in Overland Park, Kansas....and FWIW, my zip code is "66213."

What is the name/who is the owner of the cement plant were the test is being run?

Is it:

http://www.ashgrove.com/

SLUPPY

100% REAL. Good luck to GTGP holders, as your preformance will have an impact on my holdngs as well. This won't be a sprint either, but a marathon with lots of good contracts coming, IMO.

As for the "breach of confidentiality," this was something I learned yesterday; before today's PR.

"While I had initially decided to report on a daily basis, after discussions with MSE and the plant, it was decided to wait until the full-scale run, data analysis and final report was completed to represent a clear and concise set of data to determine the effect of MBS on Mercury capture at the plant.

What JF is saying here is that he got his hands slapped for releasing test results that were "outside a confidential agreement." Plain and simple, although everyone was trying to figure out why it was stated that results were to be "released on a daily basis.

That said, I have a very relaible source that says the mercury removal from the cement test plant is at 99%+ after the first six days of testing.

SLUPPY

From www.glbtech.com

About East Morgan Holdings, Inc.

The Company intends to focus its operations on pollution prevention from metal contaminated air emissions from manufacturing plants and on energy products containing heavy metals. The Company's technologies are proven in the remediation of metals in coal combustion gas emitted from coal fired plants, also the Company's technologies have proven capable of eliminating highly toxic mercury and other metals from the ash and waste water which are byproducts from coal fire plants.

Status of areas of business of the company to date.
EMHI through its joint venture partner Global Technologies Group, Inc.

EMHI/GLOBAL: The current results of this joint venture

Global Technologies Group, Inc. advised EMHI that it had received verification and final validation from MSE Technologies Applications, Inc. on the successful completion of testing on dual use treatability of contaminated soils with combination of Molecular Bonding System (MBS) and M2 Polymer Technologies, Illinois.

The final optimum percentages were calculated; the dual treatment final testing for TCLP was initiated. The application of proper mixtures was added to the spiked baseline soil samples that were submitted for TCLP analysis on March 11, 2011. On March 28, 2011, Global and M2 were notified that the TCLP results of the combination of both chemicals used can definitely perform simultaneous treatment on heavy metals for dewatering and remediation.

This important final verification of the dual use formulation which encompasses two EPA approved technologies will enable the Global, EMHI and M2 to commence penetration of the substantial government and private sector market. This will uniquely enable us to take advantage of the combined technologies for major Governmental and private companies' energy related remediation projects and enable each company to expand their penetration of both heavy metal and de-watering cleanup capabilities. "To my knowledge, this new treatment represents the first time a polymer compound and the MBS chemical formulation have been tested successfully and is the first combined formulation to be used for heavy metal remediation," said James Fallacaro, President of Global Technologies Group, Inc.

EMHI/GLOBAL has been asked to provide a design for treatment of mercury for a well-known cement plant along with design features to retrofit the plant to use the MBS process. For this project, we are asking MSE for design and implementation.

It should be noted that the EPA has mandated all cement plants must conform to new regulations requiring the reduction and omission of hazardous metals. Ash from these plants has already been classified as hazardous and the EMHI Licensed Technology MBS has already been tested and proven to correct the ash problem.

Global/EMHI intends to utilize MSE to determine application costs for use of its remediation technology in coal burning plants. This technology has already proven its ability to effectively reduce both ionic and elemental mercury from coal burning energy plant emissions while remediating the mercury. Coal burning plants currently spend more than $15 billion per year in the United States alone in failed emission control technologies.

Contact:
Richard Runco
954-380-4600