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.
Strangely, The Article Makes No Mention of GTGP...
Now, why would that be?
The article is not really verification for GTGP...
...of anything previously promo'ed by GTGP.
JF & J3 provided the info to the reporter.
Again, GTGP not mentioned. Seriously?
Although, "woman owned," mentioned.
Here we go again.
Wash-Rinse-Repeat...
Butte Weekly Article on J3, Dated/Updated April 11
http://www.buttenews.net/index.php/component/content/article/11-latest-news/463-new-environmental-engineering-and-technology-firm-opens-in-butte
SEC Decision Still Looms, Monday Pop/Drop Possible...
...depending on who wins the Ven election.
Although unlikely to realistically affect cryfq any time soon.
Socialism is deep in Ven, in all political parties there.
Realistically - next big issue is the SEC decision.
Then, the issue of Bondie's take away from commons.
Then, the issue of another loan needed to survive to ICSID.
ICSID may look good for cryfq - too much uncertainty beforehand.
Without CRYFQ disclosure, only speculation possible...
Best scenario speculation... 1. survive SEC decision.
2. Upcoming Bondie take-aways none to minimal.
3. Dilution until ICSID none to minimal.
Recent "last tranche" indicates more future borrowing.
Last loan led to give-away of shareholder ICSID portion.
Common's reward still unknown, therefore uncertain.
Worst scenario speculation... SEC revokes the ticker.
Shares still fungible. However, history of TSX following suit.
Commons lose out completely, more insider ICSID award to split.
Great opportunity for Management to settle with Bondies.
Larger shares for Tenor, Management, and Bondies.
CRYFQ non-disclosure does not help shareholders.
GLTA
In General, When the CEO Posts on iHub,...
Bad or Good?
Meaning, the CEO admits to being the CEO outright, and are now posting and explaining things about company decisions made that are being criticized by others posting.
What has been the experience or outcome of this sort of thing?
GTGP Has an Exclusive Limited License for MBS...
May 2009 SEC filing link of the Oct 2008 press release:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1308841/000110801709000166/ex991.htm
Solucorp's MBS page...
http://www.solucorpltd.com/index-4.html
Apparently, Confusion Over "Hot Run" "Report" Content...
My original post referred only to the "hot run" linked here:
Link to Hot Run
Anyone interested should personally review the linked information.
Believing outsourced DD has previously led to disaster.
It is titled on the GTGP site as "live run"...
But, majority familiar with that link as being THE "hot run."
Easy read, consists of less than three pages. Not much there.
Interesting, the reference to a second test, five times removals...
There is no indication of a second test in the "hot run"...
Nothing showing removal numbers in "hot run," only percentages.
Also, interesting quoting:"just bogus rumors. Lot of those going around concerning GTGP."
Which conveniently excludes the prior wording, "Your conjecture/implying my wanting stock are..."
The complete quote shows a different context than attempted.
Quoting things out of context is misquoting and misleading.
Implying a second test and five times removal in the "hot run?"
Neither in "hot run," so also misleading. But, everyone knows this.
Now, who is making up things?
Although, published results and claims are always amazing.
MBS removing five times of PAC? Incredibly interesting claim.
So everyone must now be using MBS? Unfortunately, Not. ...Nope.
Albemarle, Siemens, Calgon, and many others recommend PAC.
For some reason, and Not MBS... Now why would that be?
Because PAC is more cost effective and meets regulatory limits.
Right now for existing. And for newer, Easily.
Absolutely nothing made up by me about "hot run" "report."
Only revealed the truth of what was NOT in "hot run" "report."
Obviously, as noted, the same cannot be said for the reply to my post.
Understandable to be frustrated, never really knowing.
Disappointing owning GTGP stock... high-risk, unknown reward.
Lack of GTGP disclosure and their shining up the stock, to get out.
Is J3 a clue forming rumors, or a new start to abandon GTGP?
Really don't know now, eh... Nobody does, despite the rumors.
As for that suggestion to read up on things...
That suggestion is so very, very ignorant.
Have known of the Albemarle, Siemens, Calgon reality for years.
Forgotten more about this industry than most will ever know.
Suggestion - Leave sleeping dogs lay.
My Disclaimer...
I am in no way compensated for my opinion or my posts on this site. I have no "secret agenda" or personal gain that can be materialized from the act and method of my postings. Am simply a concerned, "outside" interest with appropriate knowledge and information that, I feel, may be helpful. I provide this information and related opinions of my own free will, and without direction of any person, company or entity. My motive is to educate those that may not have the background, knowledge, means or access to this information. My personal desire is to gain additional knowledge and understanding of the topics discussed. I am compelled to educate and help offset the continued barrage of misleading and obscured information that I have identified here. No ill will, malice, defamation, or slander is intended in any way. All literary creativity utilized in my posts are intended as a vehicle to express my opinions. I am always open to mature discussions of substance and encourage rebuttal and enlightenment. My sincere apologies to anyone that is disturbed by the revelations of fact that I may convey, in the recent past or in the future.
No Need To "Correct" It's Already Correct...
J3 may, or may not, be directly related to GTGP.
2012?
Your confusion seems to be about a presentation made at WM2012?
Both GTGP/EMHI did PR such, but the presentation never happened.
Definitely warrants third party verification of GTGP PR's after that.
As for the attempted "to correct" and assumed cites...
First presentation mentioned - Battelle, early February 2013.
Second presentation mentioned was at WM 2013, a few weeks later.
My post is true and correct. No hype or fantasy.
But, this is all well known.
Readers can do further DD should they desire.
GLTY
GLTA
GTGP Board is Meant for Informational Sharing...
So, instead of deflection and hype, to answer your question...
"Jody" is Jody Bickford, purportedly one of the three "J's" of J3.
Bickford previously was employed with MSE-TA.
Bickford is now with "J3" located in Butte, a company JF recently started.
Bickford made a presentation about MBS/WL, while with MSE-TA, with a recommendation that more testing of MBS/WL was necessary, and the testing would likely be done much later this year.
A similar presentation was made by Bickford, several weeks later, while with J3, where the recommendation changed from needing more testing to a straight recommendation of the MBS/WL combo. No mention was made of the previously recommended testing as ever being completed.
Rumors are that J3 will benefit GTGP, divvies, etc., etc.
No JF disclosure has been made to verify any such rumors.
On those fins, JF is required to 8K the accountant/auditor.
Not my opinion, See Page 3, upper right, Section 4.01:
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/readan8k.pdf
GLTY
GLTA
No Reason to Imply Anything About GTGP's MBS...
There is no "hot run" data to support your claim...
Nobody Noted That About Brominated PAC...
PAC is currently in use because it is proven technology.
Brominated PAC has removals as good as, better than, MBS/PAC.
Lots and lots of PAC contracts out there already.
With Albemarle, Siemens, Calgon, and many, many others.
"Hot run" indicates MBS is just an additive to PAC.
Bromated PAC is proven and in use. Reason - Cost Effective.
There is no independent data showing MBS being cost effective.
And, possibly another reason for the lack of GTGP contracts.
No conjecture about no RFP's listed on the ORNL/UCOR site.
http://info.ettp.energy.gov/90day/index.html
There are none listed. Now looking into Q4, just for an RFP.
Contract award at least a year after RFP.
WD105 has nothing for GTGP.
Plus, any contract has a lot of mouths to feed.
EMHI, M2 Polymer, SLUP, GTHI, J3, possibly many more others.
Uuncertain if GTGP shareholders will even benefit.
Your conjecture/implying my wanting stock are just bogus rumors.
Lot of those going around concerning GTGP.
Not To Say JF is Not in Butte...
...but, anyone can incorporate from just about anywhere.
Incorporating in Montana is allowed online.
"Hot run" report says nothing about who the report was prepared for. GTGP, or for JF exclusively? Big difference and for some reason not disclosed. Not a whole lot of detailed information there in the "hot run" report. There is the claim of MBS being used alone, without data to support the claim. The "hot run" report really shows MBS was used as an additive, to an in-place PAC system, to achieve the claimed removal numbers.
A little web searching finds Albemarle, Siemens, Calgon, and many others achieving 90-95% mercury (and other metals) removals with PAC alone. Using brominated PAC achieves 98-99% mercury (and other metals) removals. Bromine is significantly cheaper as a catalyst/additive than MBS. PAC/GAC has come a long way since the invention of MBS, and is significantly cheaper than MBS.
Brominated PAC is likely the reason for no MBS contracts.
Sure, MBS works. Unfortunately not as cost efficient/economical.
Market knows it and GTGP sp indicates it.
Contracts? ORNL/UCOR 90 Day looking into Q4.
No RFP's for GTGP to benefit there.
Even if there was, it would be years.
Rumors of J3 saving GTGP holders apparently just that - rumors.
Not Completely a DROP Disaster...
However, not getting a warm and fuzzy with four case studies out of eleven. And the Jamba Juice case study appears to be more about Talbott Teas being acquired by Jamba. Is Jamba being used for name recognition?
Be nice if/when the case study for Fuse appears.
May be a while.
GLTA
That's Incorrect DD, MSE-TA Did Present at WM2012...
GTGP holders using foreign outsourced DD previously had disasterous results, especially concerning the EPA Proposal that became law. As posted, Bickford did the poster presentation at WM2012.
This is GTGP Deja Vu. Big Time.
Suggest doing personal DD.
GLTY
GLTA
Surprised at Continued Push, Just GTGP Deja Vu...
In 2011, GTGP and EMHI PR'ed MSE-TA presenting at WM2012.
After MSE-TA's WM2012 poster presentation - no contracts.
Same exact presentation title given by Bickford at WM2012, as WM2013.
Not one contract resulted from WM2012. What makes anyone believe that a 20 min presentation with 5 min alloted for questions at WM2013 will get contracts, when three plus hours of one-on-one at WM2012 resulted in no contracts for GTGP. Only thing the most recent WM2013 seems to have produced is continued hype.
No fins, not even the SEC required 8k about who the accountant/auditor is.
No 8k is a very strong indication that fins are NOT being worked on.
ORNL/UCOR RFP 90 day ahead schedule, looking into Q4, shows nothing for GTGP.
Could take years anyway, even if an RFP were currently on the ORNL/UCOR list.
Lots of red flags. Be aware.
Very True. Unfortunately, Litigation Takes a Long Time...
Rule in effect in a few years, litigation likely takes longer.
Litigation filings are public record, and make news headlines.
Especially litigation by individual states. Should be easy finds.
Current search not finding litigation that might benefit gtgp.
Anyone finding such applicable litigation should post it.
EPA Updates Mercury Standards for New Power Plants
CONTACT:
Enesta Jones
Jones.enesta@epa.gov
202-564-7873
202-564-4355
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 29, 2013
EPA Updates Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for New Power Plants
Agency also proposes updates to oil and gas storage tank standards
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued updates to pollution limits for new power plants under the mercury and air toxics standards, based on new information and analysis that became available to the agency after the rule was finalized.
The updates are largely technical in nature and will have no impact on the sensible, achievable and cost-effective standards already set for existing power plants. The public health benefits and costs of the rule remain unchanged. EPA estimates that the standards, which will protect the health of millions of families, especially children, will prevent as many as 11,000 premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks every year. The standards will also help America’s children grow up healthier-- preventing 130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 6,300 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children each year.
The updated standards only apply to future power plants and do not change the types of pollution control technology that plants would install. The updates ensure that emissions limits are achievable and that pollution levels can be measured continuously.
EPA’s mercury and air toxics standards are the first national standards to protect American families from power plant emissions of mercury and toxic air pollution like arsenic, acid gas, nickel, selenium and cyanide. EPA considered dozens of public comments from a range of stakeholders, including industry and environmental groups, as part of the public process to update the new source standards.
Also on March 28, 2013, EPA proposed updates to the agency’s 2012 performance standards for storage tanks used in oil and natural gas production. The proposed changes reflect recent information showing that more higher-volume storage tanks will be coming on line than the agency originally estimated and would provide storage tank owners and operators additional time to comply with a requirement to reduce volatile organic compound emissions while equipment to reduce those emissions is being manufactured. EPA will take comment on today’s proposal for 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register and will hold a public hearing if requested.
More information on MATS: http://epa.gov/mats/actions.html
More information on the proposed updates to the oil and gas regulations: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/actions.html
Only One of Those Quotes Are Mine...
Some frustration with those other quotes?
Can't help you with that.
And the implied name calling.
Hey, if it makes for some feelin' better... whatever.
Everyone has to find a way to feel good about GTGP.
Continuing deflection will be never ending.
So much for a serious board discussing real DD.
Regardless, hope this play works out for ya.
Siemens and Calgon Have Similar PAC/GAC Information Available...
Your post supports PAC/GAC as a remediation solution.
Real DD that can be verified. Changed mind about MBS?
Activated carbon mentioned nine times as a solution.
Also, J3 has no MBS/WL presentation scheduled in Scotland.
At least at this time. Not that it matters to debt co. GTGP.
GLTY
So True...
Looks Like An Interesting Play...
Will be watching.
Nothing "Makes" Me Think Anything About All This...
But, good point. More debt for debtor company GTGP.
Nope, don't want shares. Just another bogus rumour.
GLTA
Every "Facility of Substance" Will Require Independent Testing...
From a Certified lab.
If J3 is working under some other entity license/permit as implied, then those certified lab techs under that license/permit/certification, who likely need to be contracted by J3, must be doing the certified lab testing.
That is, for the testing to be actually certified.
So, now a lab fee for J3 that will be passed along to GTGP?
Seems like more debt for the now debtor company GTGP.
Nope, don't want shares. Just another bogus rumour.
GLTA
Being Incorporated is Not Being Licensed/Permitted...
Maybe JF/J3 is working on the business license & permits to be able to do business in Butte, and so that the lab is permitted to handle the potentially dangerous materials at their new digs. Once they get the license and those permits, they will need to get lab certifications if their testing is to be accepted by the rest of the world.
But, there is a bigger question here. Since there has been a lot of information thrown out there about MBS already being tested thoroughly and completely, in numerous situations, and ready to go, etc. etc.
It just seems odd to start up a lab for what? More MBS testing?
Now, why would that be?
And, no one can answer exactly how GTGP will benefit from J3.
GLTA
Yep, The Frustration With Fallacaro/J3 is Understandable...
Seems J3 getting a business license & permits is an issue.
Like "contracts coming"... cannot be found - have tried.
No J3 business license or permits. Not that this matters to GTGP.
Look for yourself and show the J3 business license and permits.
GLTY
GLTA
Butte Updater Says Fallacaro/J3 Without Butte Business License/Permits...
Excerpt from the latest Butte Updater update...
"But in fact - he has no license to do business in Butte - which is no surprise because he always hides behind the "no paperwork" scam - and has not gotten any of the zoning or occupancy permits or permissions to do business - nor gotten the proper clearances to deal with "heavy metal" laboratory materials like mercury."
Full posting can be viewed at...
http://butte-updater.com/
GLTA
Good Post, Valid Questions Needing Verifiable Answers...
Where Might I Find More Information...
Specifically, from the below footnote, "...at which time a briefing schedule for motions for summary disposition was set." Where can the set schedule be found?
Here is the footnote...
1 The proceeding has ended as to Respondents ANTS Software, Inc., and Beauty Brands Group Inc. See Advance Nanotech, Inc., Exchange Act Release Nos. 68968, 69097 (Feb. 22 & Mar. 11, 2013). Respondent e-SIM, Ltd., has not been served with the OIP and remains in the proceeding. Respondents Crystallex International Corp. and EcoReady Corp. appeared at the March 11, 2013, prehearing conference, at which time a briefing schedule for motions for summary disposition was set.
From...
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2013/34-69207.pdf
Thanks, and hope everyone had a good weekend.
Ain't it the Truth, Ain't it the Truth...
Publically Owned "Behind the Scenes" Needs Be Disclosed...
SEC has guidlines for reporting companies.
GTGP is a part of the reporting group.
If there is truly some "behind the scenes" stuff that benefits GTGP shareholders, and it is not being disclosed to shareholders promptly...
Why would that be?
Who benefits from GTGP happenings being kept secret?
Just more uncertainty for the Market to consider.
Who knows. Maybe the big reveal will be at the "AGM."
GLTA
That is THE Reality Check Many Ignore...
Naaah. No Question Answered by the Quote...
Only question asked was, "Does GTGP get a deal/break from J3 for services?"
Sorry, the quote from the PR does not answer that.
Looks like some GTGP debt coming for services from J3.
No other questions. But, lots of GTGP uncertainty going on.
Nothing in yesterday's PR saying how GTGP shareholders benefit.
Nothing.
GLTA
Sandridge Expands Board of Directors...
OKLAHOMA CITY, March 13, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- SandRidge Energy, Inc. (NYSE: SD) today announced that it has reached a settlement agreement with TPG-Axon Capital. Under the terms of the agreement:
Four of the TPG-Axon Group's nominees – Stephen C. Beasley, Edward W. Moneypenny, Alan J. Weber and Dan A. Westbrook – will be added to the Board of Directors effective immediately.
The Board of Directors will complete a review by an independent firm of the related-party transactions that have been outlined by TPG-Axon, and expects the results of that review to be completed no later than June 15, 2013. Mr. Ward will remain Chairman and CEO while the Board completes its review.
The Board of Directors will decide by June 30, 2013, whether or not to terminate Mr. Ward's employment. If the Board does not terminate Mr. Ward by June 30, 2013, three current directors will resign, and one additional TPG-Axon nominee will be elected to the Board, resulting in a majority of the Board being TPG-Axon nominees.
In the event that Mr. Ward is no longer CEO, James Bennett will be appointed interim CEO, and the Board will conduct a search for a successor CEO. Mr. Bennett has been appointed President and Jeffrey Serota has been appointed lead independent director. In the event Mr. Ward is no longer Chairman of the Board, Mr. Serota will be appointed interim Chairman, for a term of six months.
The Board will also conduct a comprehensive review of the Company's strategy and costs, with particular focus on reducing corporate overhead and optimizing capital expenditures. As a symbol of its commitment to improving efficiency, the Board has reduced compensation for directors, effective immediately, from $375,000 to $250,000 per year.
(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20120416/DA88110LOGO)
Mr. Serota stated "We believe these actions open a new chapter for SandRidge. Going forward, the Company will focus on maximizing the potential of its existing assets, particularly its valuable position in the Mississippian formation. In addition, we remain committed to creating long-term value for all stakeholders including our shareholders and employees and the communities in which we operate. We look forward to the immediate contribution of our new directors."
Dinakar Singh, founder of TPG-Axon, commented: "We are pleased to reach agreement with the SandRidge directors, and look forward to working together to build shareholder value. We believe the actions taken by the Board address our concerns, and are a promising start to a bright future for SandRidge. We all believe that SandRidge has tremendous asset value, and we expect that the Company will relentlessly focus on growing and realizing that value through a particular focus on execution and efficiency."
TPG-Axon Group has agreed to terminate its consent solicitation and withdraw its notice to the Company of its intent to present certain proposals and nominate certain individuals for election as directors at the Company's 2013 annual meeting.
The Company noted that while the Board's review to date has not revealed any improper conduct by Mr. Ward, the Audit Committee of the Board is conducting a further review, with the assistance of independent counsel, and expects the results of that review to be completed no later than June 15, 2013.
Separately, SandRidge also announced today that Matthew K. Grubb, the Company's President and Chief Operating Officer, has informed the Company of his intent to resign to pursue other opportunities. Mr. Ward commented, "I want to thank Matt for his tireless work over the last seven years. He has been instrumental in helping SandRidge transition to a liquids rich company with a solid financial footing. We wish him the best in his future endeavors."
About SandRidge:
SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an oil and natural gas company headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma with its principal focus on exploration and production. SandRidge and its subsidiaries also own and operate gas gathering and processing facilities and conduct marketing operations. In addition, Lariat Services, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of SandRidge, owns and operates a drilling rig and related oil field services business. SandRidge focuses its exploration and production activities in the Mid-Continent, Gulf of Mexico, West Texas and Gulf Coast regions. SandRidge's internet address is www.sandridgeenergy.com.
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This communication may contain "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that may individually or mutually impact the matters herein described for a variety of reasons that are outside the control of the Company. Actual results could differ materially from those discussed above. Important factors that could affect performance and cause results to differ materially from management's expectations are described in the sections entitled "Risk Factors" and "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, which was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on March 1, 2013, as may be updated from time to time in the Company's SEC filings, which are available through the web site maintained by the SEC at www.sec.gov. The Company's forward-looking statements in this communication are based on management's current views and assumptions regarding future events and speak only as of their dates. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by the federal securities laws.
SandRidge Contacts:
Investors
Kevin R. White
Senior Vice President
SandRidge Energy, Inc.
123 Robert S. Kerr Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
+1 (405) 429-5515
Media
Gregory T. Dewey
Senior Vice President
SandRidge Energy, Inc.
123 Robert S. Kerr Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
+1 (405) 429-6388
SOURCE SandRidge Energy,
Yesterday's Announcement Doesn't Indicate How GTGP Shareholders Benefit...
It does indicate, "...handling all the needed bench scale and prototype treatability demonstrations, on site supervision, project management and marketing for the various uses of the MBS chemical process for bonding heavy metals in the field of remediation for GTGP."
That's nice. Does GTGP get a deal/break from J3 for services?
Trading after the announcement not showing much optimism.
All three - GTGP, EMHI and SLUP not seeing much, if any, luv.
Nothing to answer how GTGP shareholders benefit from J3.
Seems to be more uncertainty for GTGP shareholders.
GLTA
March 11 Monitor Report, Number Nine...
Link to Monitor Report Number Nine
Highlights:
* Company/Tenor and Noteholders optimistic about resolution;
* Response date for resolution & Stay ends May 17, 2013;
* Tenor considers Crystallex triggered an "Events of Default";
* Tenor has no obligation to continue funding to Crystallex;
* Crystallex apparently out of funds, but will get $3MM from Tenor;
* Projected cash flow of $3MM to last until May 17, 2013;
* Tenor decides to continue funding or not on or about May 17.
No comment or opinion other than this is not good for commons.
GLTA
EPA Regulations Use MCL Amounts, See Page 1008...
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-12/pdf/2012-31633.pdf
The above links to current regulations for cement plants, and on Page 1008 (only a few pages from the beginning), there is a table showing limits for existing and new sources. MCL means Maximum Contaminent Level. It might be called something similar, but MCL is typical. For mercury, Table 1 shows so many pounds of mercury allowable per million tons of clinker.
Why does the EPA use an amount rather than a percentage? Because amounts are what cause harm to people and the environment. Of course, percentages can be corrolated, but it is a lot of repetitive calculation, and sometimes can be easily manipulated to make things look good to the general public.
For instance, anything above 90% removal sounds great, right? Even higher removal like 99% is even better, right? Anyway, making the math simple, let's say we have 90% removal capability and EPA makes "1" the MCL for something where it is considered "safe" (not really how it works, but stay with me). So, with 90% removal, if you start with a sample of pollutant of "10," all is good.
But, what happens when the sample has more than "10" pollutant to begin with? Even with 90% removal, it is above MCL. People and the environment may get harmed. In the real world, starting pollutant values do not fall nicely into place to reach a safe MCL even with some very high percentage removals. There are some constituents that, even at low levels with 99.99% removal, can still harm people and the environment.
This is why EPA uses numbers. Typically to persuade improved removal technology. Keep in mind, in the case of cement plants, EPA also wants them to find clinker with less initial pollutant to start with. Less initial pollutant, better chance of reaching that MCL.
GLTY
GLTA
Interesting Recent Upside Crystallex Trading Over HC's Demise...
Huge risk for an unknown reward. Risk being a revocation of the ticker shares by the SEC. Of course, the shares are fungible with the Canadian Market, which is currently not trading. So, that is not the risk here.
Cannot imagine what a buyer's thinking might be considering this being a suspended Grey ticker. Upside over someone's death seems a bit morbid, but for an SEC suspended ticker kicked to the greys, and now threatened with being revoked, seems overly risky. Although it is a lotto ticket and anything can happen, and one might typically see this type of upside trading in Pinks. But being in Greys seems way too risky especially with the Grey statistics being what they are.
Plus, keep in mind, the Canadian Market historically has followed whatever the SEC has done to a ticker. So, the likelihood of it being revoked in the Canadian Market becomes very likely if revoked by the SEC. And should an SEC revocation occur while not trading in Canada, holders become, well, stuckholders and cannot salvage anything. Whatever. Maybe those now buying know what they are doing. The whole thing stinks that long-time shareholders were put into this position because it was "forgotten" by Crystallex management to do an SEC filing, when financials had been completed for the Canadian Market all along.
Just seems way over-the-top risky to be buying more or entering at this point.
GLTA
Thanks For That Message, Appreciate It...
Too bad... False Info.
No Lunch. Sad.
GTGP
GLTA
Sorry, Might Explain it For Believers - Not Everyone...
Making up reasons for why there are report inconsistencies is no explanation.
Might make sense to those who do not understand engineering reports.
But, those who do know engineering reports see right through all of this.
How might JF had influence on a GTGP report with earlier "run results?"
No stretch. JF gone very late November, report surfaces very early December.
JF was "taking over" MSE-TA for months before the report surfaced.
Plenty of "DD" time to obtain letterhead. Who really knows.
It is just as legitimate speculation as the J3 speculation.
The lack of real data for calcs is very telling in the second report.
Volume been pretty scarce for a while.
It appears the Market sees through all of this, too.
MSE-TA Used Quantities For the GTGP Report Here:...
First Report (Full link below)
But, then not for the GTGP "full-scale" report here:
Second Report (Full link below)
Putting aside that these two reports are inconsistent in format and that JF had influence over the second report since he was at MSE at the time it was being produced,... MSE-TA used quantities in the first report, yet did not in the second. Showing the real data used for the percentage calcs was no biggie in the first report. Showing real data and calculations is what real engineering companies do. Engineering reports are always consistent within a company. Yet no real data used for calcs are found in the second report. Another inconsistency.
Now, why would that be?
GLTA
First Report Full Link:
http://www.glbtech.com/upload_user/mse-300_MBS_Mercury_lReport_r.pdf
Second Report Full Link:
http://www.glbtech.com/upload_user/MBS%20full-Scale%20Cement%20Plant%20Testing%20Final%20Report.pdf
Entertainment Value...