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.
Not that I've heard. I checked the FTC website to find out if any activity has occurred as a result of recent court action but nothing new listed.
Inspite of my current negativity I do believe Mr. Riggs is trying very hard to promote this company. He's doing the right things from that perspective but increasing one's salary before tangible results are realized does not instill confidence. Maybe before he fattens his and his executive team's wallets he should at least wait unitl his promotional efforts are further validated and the stock price inches up.
What really irked me about what he said on his latest CEO Update blog were his comments regarding Solazyme. Please go read it and then read Solazyme's SEC Prospectus filing. Start with their stated risks (this will take awhile), then review the revenue generated to date, and finally review the recent astronomical compensation increases. My take is this company has been surviving on the taxpayers nickel since inception, is not currently generating any significant income, and has a multiplicity of extremely high risk factors, not the least of which is finding sufficient feed stock. They are however superb marketers and maybe that's why Riggs likes them so much.
Yes, that approach might just work but first I have to unload OOIL and that won't happen until the price climbs at bit. I really do hope the company is on the "up & up" because if it is then it's going to pay a huge return for those that can hold on.
You know, I don't care which one of you are right! As a trader I'm only interested in whether the stock makes or loses money. I've been burnt by a couple penny stocks (CVSC and recently MRES). I did look at as much online info as I could before buying either but at the time they both seemed very legit. Now, after those painful lessons, I'm turing into an unscrupulous bastard who could care less how this particular stock appreciates in value.....as long as it does.
Guess we stock holders are just up the well known creek without a paddle. I'd like to think it's at least a lesson learned but I'm not sure what I've learned except that I got screwed by a bunch of crooks. How does one know that a company is going to turn out to be a scam? I sure as heck hope they get thown in jail and all their assests ceased.
I think legal costs are taken out of the settlement first. Anything left is divided across the class population.....otherwise not many people would risk adding insult to injury by assuming financial responsibilty for legal fees.
Question: Will a future class action judgement $ benefit apply to everyone who held MRES shares at the time the SEC investigation commenced?
22.6 million shares traded from a high of .003 to a low of .0015. Why all the fuss.....you may have the answer. One thing for sure, the only ones making money today were the brokers!
Anyone know why the share price dropped so far today and so many shares being traded? I can't find any recent news to explain it.
Even though I continue to have long term faith I'm not sure I can wait until the technology proves it can compete. What we need now are updates on the Australia MBD and Mexico projects.
what's up with the heavy volume today. Can't find any news that would generate such volume. Maybe everyone is getting out while they have a little skin left.
Yes, I've heard of that expression.......it frequently applies to government agencies!
As promised earlier, I contacted Mr. Riggs regarding my questions pertaining to conversion efficiencies. Below is his response.
"Our yield efficiency was disclosed <www.originoil.com/company-news/originoil%e2%80%99s-algae-oil-extraction-process-reaches-highest-industry-efficiency-standards.html> on 26 October 2009, and this was supported by documentation from our lab test partner, California State University Long Beach .
Our energy balance is disclosed only to NDA partners at this time. We believe we are by far the most efficient non-chemical method available for dewatering algae and compromising the cells for downstream use".
My follow-up email asked:
"you made reference to chemical versus non-chemical extraction methods but provided no factural data. Has OriginOil conducted such a study and determined the non-chemical approach to be the higher yield and higher efficiency methodology"?
To which he replied:
"Allen - we do have the data but still consider it proprietary at this time. We have learned that our industry generally prefers non-chemical approaches, as this reduces steps (getting the chemicals back out) and eliminates the potentially lengthy permitting process".
We are still left wondering how this company stacks up against others but just in terms of operational efficency there's no question a single step approach is much better.
Allen
Which is why I want to know OOil's (and others) conversion efficiency. Once that is known then a bit of simple arithmetic is all that's needed to determine whether there is any real hope in substantially augmenting global energy needs. Of course, these companies know that as well and is why I doubt any of them will share this information unless one of them really does have the best conversion technology.
The current stock price and where it goes from here is another matter. Perception is 90% reality when it comes to stock price movements. We've all seen how quickly prices can change with only the slightest positive or negative news.
I agree with you about IR people. Their greatest corporate contribution is promoting the company's stock. I'll try your suggestion about contacting Riggs and report back.
As for Solazyme, while I'll acknowledge there may not be a direct competitive link one can not completely ignor any company that is in the business of producing products from algae. In a sense we're all competing for the same dollars in respective markets.
From what little I've learned thus far, no one company can stake a claim as to achieving the holy grail in converting algae at sufficient volumes and efficiencies to compete on a national scale. With that said, there are several companies, Solazyme being one, that have government and educational community backing (i.e., money, personnel, equipment, facilities). Just compare Solazyme's board of directors and lead technical personnel with OriginOil. This is but one of many examples.
So what makes OriginOil attractive to me? You said it best, "Our niche, of course, is algae extraction and harvesting...." And,to date, it appears OriginOil's one step method is proving to be the leading industry technology. Hence, OriginOil's greatest assest will be its intellectural property, assuming it receives the sought after patent protection. Therefore, they are ripe for acquisition and will thus eventually pay its investors hugh profits.
In the end there will only be a few players that will be able to offer a complete algae solution. Why? Because the scale that will have to be achieved to even come close to competing with crude oil is huge and only a few companies will emerge with enough resources and deep pockets to acheive this level of production.
I think the real success story for society lies in the fact that something bad (CO2 emissions) can be converted into something good (algae food). A Win-Win acheivment!
I too am new to OOil having only taken a position since Janurary. I'm particularly interested in their methodologies but would sure like to see something that really quantifies their advantage over other competing technologies. Yesterday I contacted their inverstor relations group with the following message:
I'm an investor and thinking about uping my ante but recent info on various OriginOil competitors have caused some concern. For example, Solazyme has filed for a 100M IPO.
Given that there are many different technologies being promoted to produce and extract algae oil it would be extremely informative if OriginOil provided a comparsion graphic or chart that illustrates OriginOil's advantage. One area of particular interest would be comparing the oil extraction yield percentages. As an example, to achieve 1 gal of biodiesel fuel you would have to process "X" pounds of algae using process "A", "B", "C", etc. Also, what are the Pros/Cons of using different algae strains? Does a particular strain impact OriginOil's extraction methodology?
I'm very excited about this company and the progress thus far and would really appreicate any additional information you can provide.[color=red][/color]
I received the following disappointing reply:
Allen, Based on your e-mail request I am forwarding to you a link you can go to which will address your question. biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/02/27/diversified-technology-debuts-low-cost-algal-oil-extraction-technology/ Hopefully this will satisfy your info request. In addition we are currently conducting a PPM (Private Placement Memorandum) and the terms are $10,000 minimum buy at $.10 per share with a one year restriction. If you are interested let me know and I can send the paperwork to you. Best Regards
This sort of blase response is not indicative of a company interested in investor inquiries. The website they suggested explains pulsed electro-field technology as it applies to oil extraction from algae but clearly did not address the questions I posed.
Hope they do better the next time I have a few questions.
WEll it's a good thing they are going to first promote (assuming they really have something) in a foreign country. In the U.S. it would take at least 5 years to even get preliminary FDA approval.
Unless they really do have a viable product, which is looking more and more doubtful given the dubious background of the corporate officers.
Regrettably you are correct. The cycle will continue until they get hauled into court. Unfortunatley, there will be many casualities along the way.......and I'll likely be one of them!
I too bought 100K back when the stock was 0.02. About three years ago I also invested in another upstart medical stock (CVSC) and now that company is headed to court next month in northern Illinois to defend itself against a SEC lawsuit for fraud. It's becoming very evident that investing money in any unknown medical company--whether associated with a U.S. university as CVSC was (U of Central Flordia) or appears to have the next new medical breakthrough (MRES)--has a 99% chance of failure. And if corporate officers have track records of deception then the percentage of losing money increases to 99.9%.
I saddly have to admit that all I'm waiting for now is another pump cycle to recoup a little of my money......knowing full well that if and when that happens some other unsuspecting soul will soon be agonizing over their investment.
Like you I also own the stock. I brought in at different price points thinking it had to be the "real deal" if associated with University of Central Flordia. I also thought the technology they were supposedly trying to develop would be a real winner. Needless to say when I discovered the SEC suit my hopes came crashing down.
I should have said the SEC.
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 21513 / May 4, 2010
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Seven Palm Investments, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-02755 (N.D. Ill.) (May 4, 2010)
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil action today in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Naperville, Illinois based Seven Palm Investments, LLC and its principal Peter P. Veugeler, together with Orlando, Florida based Cardiovascular Sciences, Inc., and Lawrence H. Hooper, Jr. of Oviedo, Florida, for antifraud and registration violations.
According to the SEC's complaint, from at least October 2007 through September 2009, Veugeler reaped a total of more than $8 million from the pump and dumps of two unrelated companies, Cardiovascular Sciences and Emergent Health Corp. The SEC alleges that Veugeler, through his company Seven Palm, promised financing to both companies in exchange for nearly all their purportedly unrestricted shares. Veugeler, among other things, entered manipulative trades in both companies' stock, allowing Seven Palm to sell its stock holdings in both companies at artificially inflated prices.
The SEC's complaint further alleges that Cardiovascular Sciences and Hooper, Cardiovascular Sciences's president and CEO, disseminated false and misleading press releases and other correspondence to investors between October 2007 and February 2008. The complaint also alleges that Veugeler reviewed and discussed with Hooper a number of the false press releases and directed him to work with a third-party stock promoter to issue the press releases to the public.
According to the SEC's complaint, Veugeler engaged in manipulative practices aimed at misleading the market to increase and maintain artificially high prices so Veugeler could resell Seven Palm's Cardiovascular and Emergent holdings for substantial gains.
The SEC's complaint further alleges that Veugeler devised a Cardiovascular promotional campaign to facilitate Seven Palm's liquidation of its Cardiovascular shares and that many of the Defendants' public misrepresentations and omissions concerned Seven Palm providing funding to Cardiovascular. The complaint alleges that public statements regarding Seven Palm providing funding to Cardiovascular were misleading because at the time they were made, Seven Palm had not provided any funding to Cardiovascular.
As alleged in the SEC's complaint, the defendants violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint seeks a judgment against all defendants providing for injunctions, and civil money penalties. The complaint also seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest against Seven Palm, Veugeler, and Cardiovascular Sciences, and penny stock bars against Veugeler and Hooper.
See Also: SEC Complaint
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2010/lr21513.htm
I assume everyone knows CVSC has been sued by the FEC for basically fraud. They're suppose to be in court next month.