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.
Maybe a place to park their personal hoard of shares in XYZQC they might be receiving soon via a takeover?????
This was not an MCCY company announcement. I'm sure they will let everyone know when they're ready. KP
"shares have risen 1,525% to a recent $3.25, generating an $86 million market cap. The West Berlin, N.J. firm has zero revenues, an accumulated deficit, a going-concern warning in its filings and all of ten employees."
Looks like they're not as big as Chevron yet?
Also looks like some people missed out on the 1500% rise - or could it be panic with the new SHO regulation changes taking effect in mid OCT?
Very interesting - KP
Anyone care to speculate on why a poster would join IHUB on July 31, post 33 times in one month - all on one board - all casting doubt about the the company being discussed on that board.
Why would he do that?
1) Does he represent short interests?
2) Does he work for a competitor wishing to bash the company?
3) Does he simply hide behind an alias to try to puff himself up as being an expert on energy recovery?
Food for thought - KP
Rinvino - I live in California and have email and a phone so I guess I'm linked to the company.
Am a retail shareholder in both GBRC and MSRM but never been affiliated in any way. Like what I see so far.
Spent many of my 70 years in and around Silicon Valley start ups.
Look at MCCY = best op I've seen in 10 years.
kp, are you still linked to the company?
Hardball88 - You seem bent on posting your personal views as facts, which IMO, can mislead current investors as well as newbies. Either you lack DD regarding GRC or choose to deceive for whatever reason.
Per the latest SEC release, GRC has retained a consultant to advise them in connection with their American Exchange listing, not for the purpose you state.
"GBRC management may be intelligent and capable, but apparently they have been unable, for a number of years, to raise suitable funding at a time when money, especially for oil extraction technologies, has been flowing readily. Perhaps their newly hired consultant will have success in this regard".
Additionally, they have retained a broker-dealer to strengthen their financial condition to qualify for the listing. You imply they have needed suitable funding for a number of years to get things started? The first 20 reactors are now under production by a division of the largest Machine Tool Maker in the world. The cost is far more than 4-8 million.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070716/clm044.html?.v=81
"There are too many technologies already out there that evidence a decisive lower cost per bbl for oil production/extraction than currently being described by GBRC".
My DD indicates they are far ahead of most and that the pie is very large. I think I will keep some skin on this table. Maybe you should select another technology and post on their board. This board is for people seeking accurate DD on GBRC.
From the SEC filing: "The Company has decided to seek a listing for its Common Stock on the American
Stock Exchange. The Company has retained a consultant to advise it in that
connection, has met with a Specialist and reached a preliminary understanding,
and has met with representatives of the Exchange. To strengthen its financial
condition so that it will qualify for listing, the Company has retained a
broker-dealer to conduct a private placement of $4,000,000 to $8,000,000. The
Company anticipates filing its listing application in the near future."
Joedebull - What's possible?.
1) It's possible that energy cost could go up (either explosively or gradually)
2) It's possible that energy cost could stay the same.
3) It's possible that energy cost could go down to $50bl.
4) It's possible that energy cost could go to $30bl or below.
We must decide what we think GRC's wiggle room might be for each scenario and then invest accordingly.
"Is it possible that energy cost could
explode in a very short period of time,
if shortages continue."
Dragon man - Funny how Colinb joins IHUB 7/20, makes three posts, then dissapears into the night. Did you ever get a response or report this to Admin. KP
Rinvino - Not a GRC discovery but truly fascinating. KP
http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.aspx?aid=35660&bw
http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.aspx?aid=41291&bw
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=73068
"possible applications to other areas including the medical field is truly fascinating"
Rin:
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/070831/gbrc.pk8-k.html
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=6995
7/6/07
"The original scope was illustrated in a pie chart that included a few applications developed through Frank's years of research. The early days were quite comical, I heard, in that on several occasions his microwave reactors blew up. Next the reactors were purged with nitrogen to remove oxygen and the results were promising and without explosion. Then I joined Frank after a long period of separation and added vacuum pumps to extract oxygen and removed the consumable gas provision. This also created a pressure that additionally helped the high frequencies crack the hydrocarbon chain better and because there is very little oxygen and closed looped, there is no oxidation thus no CO2 or CO.
We use a sweeping TWT microwave reactor in the lab and after many test dial in the best suited specific frequency found that crack the hydrocarbon chains of the materials we’re testing. After knowing the specific frequency we can then develop a klystron specific to the application.
The additional materials tested, more often than not, came from prospects visiting the company and brought it in with them. On many occasions after they leave they come back with more materials. I wish I could tell you all the stuff we’ve nuked but many turned out to be of great value in our overall mission.
We do manage to keep up with the variety of applications and as long as the patent is still pending we can include (submit) the new applications in the patent application. Once the patent is issued then it will be too late to add anything new and we will have to file new patent applications specific to the new discoveries. I’m told our patent should be awarded around the first of Fall 07.
I hesitate to tell you about the latest discovery because people already think we’re crazy but I view it revolutionary beyond what we’ve already accomplished."
Hawk Hogan
GRC, Chief Engineer
Hardball - Thanks, but I expect everyone might have to do their own comparative analysis if they want to enter ahead of the crowd. Most of the key information is already out there and has been for a while.
"one will hopefully finally be able to see in the private placement document how GBRC meaningfully defines its technology relative to competing technologies".
I doubt if you will ever get what you're hoping for. LOL
"the private placement will be a litmus test regarding the viability of GBRC's microwave technology and applications in a field that is quickly becoming crowded with both serious and superficial players".
What expert has said that the "field is becoming crowded"? Could you please direct me to that information.
"The only curious aspect of this announcement is the low number for the private placement. Four to eight million is very light-weight given the funding available to or secured by GBRC competitors. In any event, an AMEX listing, if it occurs, will expose GBRC to much more professional critique and analysis than is now the case. GBRC's market cap of $100 MM or so as well as its past financial transactions will have to pass a very serious laugh test".
I rely on management to decide whether the amount of funds being raised is too low or too high and whether it's "light weight" compared to competitors. My DD indicates management is very intelligent and capable. As a retail shareholder, with limited or no say about anything, I have to rely on my "trust" in management. Otherwise I buy shares in another stock.
What does a "very serious laugh test" involve??. Have you ever passed one?
KP
Hardball - You have missed a very important point of the GRC system. The system is close looped and the microwave generator is powered by consumable gasses created in the cracking process. It therefore does not require outside electricity or other fuels to be delivered to the site - there are no CO2 or CO emissions that need to be sequestered. This has a fantastic advantage when you compare it to other oil recovery prospects for remote locations that will require huge amounts of electrical power, water, fossil fuel or sequestering in the recovery process.
If you want a more detailed explanation of the technical aspects, I suggest you contact Hawk Hogan at GRC.
"Unless the microwave generator is powered by renewable energy, it does of course generate CO2 via fossil-fuel powered power plants that provide power to the microwave generator".
KP
Joe! Thanks to your intelligent insight into MCCY, I now have enough trust in RH & Co to put some real skin on the table.
It's a stretch to think that MCCY has landed deals with Volkswagen, Telus, and the others without Argo/Anydata/Qualcom/Biocog being on board? It also appears that the FOLO black box could indeed become the standard for everything - auto, air, rail and marine. Who's network equipment can deliver all of this? QC?
http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/volkswagen-apple-consider-icar-project/20070830061909990001
I rate you, STATX and PwAg tops in dart throwing.
STATX post # 18483 : if i had to throw a dart i would say it looks as if MCCY is to be aquired.. a subsiderary we shall be with all the help to expand.. and Qualcomm offsets/allocates/secures the shares to be exchanged >> QUALCOMM. Announces $1.1 Billion Stock Repurchase.. a smart move by MCCY imo.. RH advisors know what they have, know what it can do for themselves and to competing others, but question controling the expeditious demand, and question the true potential value once washed into the market.. by aquiring shares of the purchasing company RH and investors still can share in the future rewards.. and for Qualcomm they retain the brainiacs behind the FOLO/GPS systems for any future enhancements in the business stategy.. only thing is 1.1 billion seems kinda steep for a stock swap.. now if biocog was attached that would seem more likely... :)[b/]
KP
STATX: Maybe 1.1 billion does not seem kinda steep for a stock swap after all??? (even without Biocog) Good posts.
food for thought.. click >the entire nextgen video on right of view box.. gave me chills thinking of MCCY's DOT meeting where "other" departments sat in.. my take is if RH tech is unsurpassed then look for a connection into the just approved funding of the aviation upfit.. at the very least i forsee a DOT/Insurance approval just on the premise of wanting the US transportation networks connected to one platform.. funny thing is.. watching the video made me wonder if in the FOLO system creation did RH have the trucking industry as their main purpose.. and are pieces being put together today to set up a presentation in OCT for the DOT/DOD/DOA as a solid entity ready for the task???? lol.. interesting indeed.[b/]
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/reauthorization/
Nice to see informative and relevant posts. Thanks
CTL needs the support of "the average American". Only when the public is convinced it will be "cleaner and cheaper", will they demand it and only then will State and Federal legislators act to help it along. Global Resources has one of the few technologies IMO right now that might be clean and cheap enough to get the job done without having to rely on public funding. http://www.futurecoalfuels.org/news.asp
While Silverado should be commended for their efforts to move forward on CTL, their CO2 sequestering plan might present problems for the "clean and cheap" crowd. Of the advancing technologies for Enhanced Oil Recovery, CO2 repressurizing may soon become the least attractive solution.
From the Silverado web site: http://www.silveradogreenfuel.com
"All the CO2 (carbon dioxide) produced while making hydrogen from coal, air, and steam will be sequestered in underground reservoirs where it enhances oil recovery from the declining production of present day oil fields".
"The carbon dioxide can be separated efficiently from the hydrogen fuel via commercial processes and sold for use in enhanced oil recovery processes. The carbon dioxide will be used to repressurize oil fields thereby increasing oil production from declining US oil fields. The carbon dioxide remains sequestered in the underground formation".
The GRC Energy Recovery Technology operates in a vacuum. THE RESULT - nothing is released into the environment.
Other technologies for inexpensive hydrogen other than from CTL:
Hydrogen from ammonia: http://www.ohio.edu/av/scholars/tech/botte.cfm
Radio frequency cracking of hydrogen from salt water (I don't know how to copy this amazing video into the IHUB so send your email address and I will forward it). kpoll10@aol.com
Several methods seem to be better alternatives than spending $100 billion in public funds to start CTL which may already be an obsolete idea. JMHO
CTL needs the support of "the average American". Only when the public is convinced it will be "cleaner and cheaper", will they demand it and only then will State and Federal legislators act to help it along. Global Resources has one of the few technologies IMO right now that might be clean and cheap enough to get the job done without having to rely on public funding. http://www.futurecoalfuels.org/news.asp
While Silverado should be commended for their efforts to move forward on CTL, their CO2 sequestering plan might present problems for the "clean and cheap" crowd. Of the advancing technologies for Enhanced Oil Recovery, CO2 repressurizing may soon become the least attractive solution.
From the Silverado web site: http://www.silveradogreenfuel.com
"All the CO2 (carbon dioxide) produced while making hydrogen from coal, air, and steam will be sequestered in underground reservoirs where it enhances oil recovery from the declining production of present day oil fields".
"The carbon dioxide can be separated efficiently from the hydrogen fuel via commercial processes and sold for use in enhanced oil recovery processes. The carbon dioxide will be used to repressurize oil fields thereby increasing oil production from declining US oil fields. The carbon dioxide remains sequestered in the underground formation".
The GRC Energy Recovery Technology operates in a vacuum. THE RESULT - nothing is released into the environment.
Other technologies for inexpensive hydrogen other than from CTL:
Hydrogen from ammonia: http://www.ohio.edu/av/scholars/tech/botte.cfm
Radio frequency cracking of hydrogen from salt water (I don't know how to copy this amazing video into the IHUB so send your email address and I will forward it). kpoll10@aol.com
Several methods seem to be better alternatives than spending $100 billion in public funds to start CTL which may already be an obsolete idea. JMHO
I talked to Jeff Andrews today. Registration is in progress and should be approved by end of Sept. If the approval is delayed by the SEC for some reason, Global will have the option to extend the warrant expiration dates into 2008. All Mobilestream shares are to convert @ 1 free traded GBRC for each 7.143 Mobilestream owned and 1 GBRC $4.75 Warrant for every 3 GBRC shares received.
There will be no free trading of the Warrants.
Be careful! This looks like a Nigerian scam. All "double speak" on phony web site IMO.
Hardball88 - If you want to see a great example of a bright young CEO backed by heavyweight supporters, check out:
http://www.ecnholding.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
I'm 70, Silicon Valley vet and MCCY is best ground floor op I've seen in 10 years. Only my opinion. Good luck KP
HARDBALL - My post was in response to your statement that "no one seems to be seriously analyzing who GBRC's competitors are". Much of the analysis being done is not likely to be posted on a MB (for free). Competition.
I concentrate my DD on the people behind the company and if their product or service will be useful to a huge number of people. I have found I can better predict success by checking the people standing next to the CEO in the photo rather than digging into all the technical aspects. His supporters are the ones that make him a winner. If his invention or skills have no validity, or if it's a scam, he will be in the photo by himself and it's time to pass. It's their job to do the inventing, testing, market research, negotiating and technical stuff. It's my job to spot people that do that job well and create something of use.
I just purchase stock, I don't try to micro manage their decisions.
Pringle has some real pros supporting his plan and when implemented, it should be of use to millions of people. IMO.
Hardball
Go to this site and click on "Petrozene"
http://www.freestoneresourcesinc.com
You may also like to check out Nevtah.
http://www.nevtahoilsands.com/
Nevtah is starting production now using solvents and should make more $ than any company just selling solvents IMO.
They may have a head start on GBRC (in this arena) but there should be room for everyone. I'm a shareholder in all three. KP
Riv,
I'm aware of the letter and emailed Jeff last week asking for a clarification. No response yet.
Have you clarified this?
KP
Dear Mr Andrews:
I am an enthusiastic shareholder of Global Resources as well as the owner of some Mobilestream shares. Frank Pringle's letter to the shareholders dated July 20, 2007 stated that Mobilestream shareholders would receive "one share of Global for each 7.14 shares of Mobilestream and will also receive one Global warrant for each three shares of Global received".
I have two questions:
1) From the July 20 letter:
Q. The Warrants will expire shortly, are they being extended since registration is required?
A. Yes. The Board has extended them and the new dates for expiration are as follows.
CRC "B" and "D" Warrants, exercisable at $2.75, extended to Dec 31, 2007
CRC "E" Warrants, exercisable at $4.00, extended to March 31, 2008.
Warrants for Mobilestream, exercisable at $4.75, extended to March 31, 2007.
As this date has expired was it a mistake and supposed to read Dec 31, 2007 (the same as the CRC "B" and "D" extension)?
2) Mobilestream shares are still being traded on the OTC market. Will all holders of those shares, regardless of when purchased, now convert at the same ratios as above when the registration is complete ?
Sincerely,
Ken Pollard
From the latest SEC Filings, the warrants expire Dec 31, not end of March 2008.
WARRANTS (page 17)
The Company issued 3,908,340 Class B warrants, 1,397,600 Class D warrants and 1,397,600 Class E warrants. The Class B and Class D warrants have an exercise price of $2.75 and the Class E warrants have an exercise price of $4.00. All of the warrants expire on September 21, 2007.
The Company issued 27,205,867 Common Stock Purchase warrants on the basis of 1 warrant for each 3 shares of either common stock or preferred stock (the 2006 Series), exercisable at $4.75 per share. These warrants expire on December 31, 2007.
Nowhere does it say anything about MCCY compensating them!
Videos of Neukomm and Botte. - Huge news for USA and this Co.
http://www.ohio.edu/av/scholars/tech/botte.cfm
Mag wind article
The World's First "Magnetic Levitation" Wind Turbines Unveiled in China (TreeHugger)
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/07/china_unveils_w.php
Any insight into "The Tail Wind Fund Ltd" or "Lifecell"?
KP
13.65% of the o/s (over 6M)have been purchased by one buyer since Feb.??
http://investor.eaglebroadband.com/EdgarDetail.cfm?CIK=1023139&FID=1406032-07-4&SID=07-00