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.
Bob and/or Matt:
Please help with this matter. Chambers52 keeps deleting messages on the IHub FASC board that in no way are violating IHub TOS. If there is, I'd wish one of you would please show me in what way they could have. Thank you.
#5861
Here are the two latest that he deleted immediatley,which shows he didn't even read them.
#5861
Add to that Megsters post on RB:
TRCPA Your game obviously hasn't worked for years.
Of course I would like to see FASC pull a rabbit out of a hat and see all investors do well, but I am not naive enough to think FASC is anywhere close to it at the moment.
There are a number of positives for the future but my concern is for the present and short term.
You have chosen to defend everything management has said or done for years. Whether it's exercising large options for peanuts, taking unwarranted bonuses at the expense of other priorities, or dumping their shares on runups.
You never question why they miss every due date they have ever announced, nor why any of the deals you hype turn out to be non existant or just fade away. You jump on every new horse and ride like mad.
Do you ever stop and reflect on past events or always just look to the future and ignore the present.
Dilution is /has been and will be a problem for some time to come and wishing it was not so will not make it go away.
Wait for the next round of debt settling and see how many new shares get issued before year end.
and, while Megster says there are a number of positives for the future, remember back over the eight + years where there where such positives and the future vanished. Now we start all over again on another future. No Megster is absolutely correct.
And, why doesn't a real investor ever question missed due dates? Especially when every single due date is missed. Seriously? A real investor would.
Substance verses style appears to be just meaningless words to cheerlead long term investors.
#5860
Lets go over that, shall we? Substance in 8+ years, zero. If you're interested in substance, then LOL, as there in all that time has been no real viable substance. And, you can spin all you want about the tid bits of little income they got this year, the fact remains they still are operating at a loss, (891,812). And, those deals aren't done yet. In the past fasc had such great deals that feel through or into the abyss of oblivion that shareholders never know about. That can still happen. And, you nor anyone else on here can refute that with any degree of assurance. No one know what their true debt is, as some can well be hidden in their contracts. They will get some morsels from the funding via Sustainable Development Technology Canada - SDTC. And, lets not forget the humongous loss located in stockholder's equity( 11,077,014). One never knows how that will finally play out, do they? And, don't try accounting games with me. The fact remains, they fully intend to try to recoup that first before they take care of shareholders. And, don't forget the charade fasc tied to pull in trying to suck investors to buy into a program to fund the mini KDS, in which they failed miserably. And you talk about substance? What substance?
Style. Extremely poor choice of words. fasc has no style and it has proven or demonstrated such. And, don't give their travels around the world crap that hasn't produced real income at any significant level. All one has to do to throw a bucket of cold water on that is say Ireland and Japan. Add to that the first Poland deal that went no where. And, no one can say with any degree of certainty that the current one will go any further, can they? Their PRs, even with the latest news, is nonexistent. Their follow up on contracts and projects are nonexistent. Do you forget the Japanese deal that feel through and they never said a word about it to their investors? STYLE! And, how about the never ending AP trials? STYLE? And, the Irish deal? STYLE? Just to name a few. And, you try to shove STYLE at us? What style?
And, daytraders? You haven't the slightest idea in the world what you're talking about. You obviously didn't spend much time comprehending the post you responded to. Where did it say anyone sold that particular stock? Show one post even on this board where I posted a daytrader type sale. If you're going to try to attack and insult, then please post like you know what you're talking about. I can see, however, where daytraders might feel quite differently. Can you really? To do that, one must be able to spot a daytrader tactic and be able to spell it out as such. NONE have been shown in any of my posts. NONE!
"As a long investor here, I happen to be far more interested in substance over style." I don't think so.One hasn't been shown to exist more than the other.
IMO.
_ _I4C6S, unless I read my prior post wrong, I didn't allude that AgES was in anyway obligated. Just that is was their honor. And, as far as fasc, well they more or less have a bad PR image.
I agree with the company one is invested in telling its shareholders. Just yesterday I was more than happy to post about a pharmaceutical I had invested in going up (post 5787) $.10. It did that on the immediate PR of just an announcement of the results of their Phase III results. Now today, that very same stock, due to the timely dissemination of news, has had an increase, so far, in the PPS today of $.19. To me, timely PRs are critical and important.
fasc is the parent company, no less.
IMO.
Well, _ _ I4C6S, I think the point of some frustrated longfellowing shareholders concerning the timely release of the information for both shareholders and perspective shareholders is it should have already been taken care of. Since AgES was the main player, they should have done the honours, not FASC, who is a bit player in the show. Just my take on it. I did read that particular wire yesterday.
IMO.
Strange. Had no problem finding that "News Release" on the website. But, where is the PR? Checked these, and couldn't find it:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news/
http://www.newswire.ca/en/
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/index.jsp?front_door=true
Not many prospective investors will find it on a website they may not know about.
For some reason, which I'll keep to myself, you didn't give me any. If you did, I'd have 3. I am well aware of who gave me the two (a special thanks to Rafael). And, in the reality of life and posting, they really, really, really don't mean a thing. Worthless points of expression that satisfy those with low self esteem. My phrase at the end of every message is just humor.
And, your second paragraph is IMO just a joke of thoughts for self gratification. I've seen Rafael's posting and your incessant posts to him. They were strangely familiar. Didn't you also start that with me? Yes, now I understand. Hope you do.
And, I'm very happy that AgES finally posted a reprint of the news. Think it'll make some on RB a little happier?
No news from AgES or fasc? Why? Most companies get that kind of news out right away. Especially for their shareholders. Strange. But, then fasc always had a problem with good PRs and the follow-up required on them.
Sandernw had a good post on that very subject on RB. He wrote, "UP: Doesn't it stand to reason that management must come out with news IF what AGES talks about effects FASC in a big way. I can't understand what they are waiting for. It's their obligation to keep stockholders abreast of major matters and especially once the news it out. I am beginning to wonder if FASC has a big piece of this or not."
See, no news when their should be news brings out wonders.
FWIW, I don't believe fasc has a big piece of this.
IMO.
I can truly feel the love on this board. I sincerely hope all my new found friends on here feel it also. Sure hope they give me more people marks.
What no people marks from you?
Maybe someday you and I can actual discuss what you know about fasc?
Where is this friend of yours Rafael whose name keeps popping up?
I can truly feel the love on this board. I sincerely hope all my new found friends on here feel it also. Sure hope they give me more people marks.
OT:For those that remember your college drinking days and the various songs, you'll like this:
http://www.coorslight.com/beergame
I can truly feel the love on this board. I sincerely hope all my new found friends on here feel it also. Sure hope they give me more people marks.
OT: Bobsnook. Hope you don't enjoy coffee too much.
Coffee May Raise Heart Disease Risk
Moderate Amounts Raise Inflammation and May Increase Heart Disease Risk, Says Greek Study
By Miranda Hitti
WebMD Medical News Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD
on Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Oct. 20, 2004 -- Before you pour that next cup of coffee or head to the corner cafe, you may want to get up to speed on the latest coffee research.
Drinking even moderate amounts of coffee may raise your risk of heart disease, according to a Greek study.
Past studies looking at coffee's effects on the heart have shown conflicting results. This study is the first to focus on coffee and inflammation, one of the key mechanisms linked to the development of heart disease, obesity, and diabetes.
The report, which appears in the October issue of American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, shows that people who drink moderate to high amounts of coffee had increased levels of markers of inflammation.
Coffee Increases Markers of Inflammation
The study included more than 3,000 Greek men and women with no history of heart disease.
Participants filled out questionnaires about their coffee drinking as well as other factors that influence heart health such as age, sex, body mass index (BMI), diet, exercise, smoking habits, and use of medications. They also indicated their consumption of fruits, vegetables, fish, nuts, olive oil, and alcohol.
They also provided blood samples, which were screened for markers of inflammation.
The results were analyzed by researchers including Demosthenes Panagiotakos of the nutrition and dietetics department at Harokopio University in Athens.
Participants who said they drank more than 200 mL of coffee a day (a little more than one cup, which was defined as moderate consumption) had higher levels of inflammatory markers than those who drank no coffee.
The results held even after factoring in influences like age, sex, diet, and exercise.
"The results presented here suggest that the increase in inflammatory markers could be evident even with 2 cups of coffee/day," write the researchers.
There's no refuge in splitting hairs about the type of caffeinated coffee beverage consumed.
The researchers took that into account, asking participants whether they drank instant coffee, brewed coffee, Greek-type coffee, cappuccino, or filtered coffee.
Since some of those coffee drinks may be more concentrated than others, the various drinks were adjusted to equal one cup of coffee at 28 mg of caffeine per cup.
The authors say that while diet exerts an effect on high blood pressure, cholesterol, and inflammation markers in blood, the study adds evidence that diet intervention can reduce the inflammatory process and may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCES: Zampelas, A. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, October 2004; vol 80: pp 862-867. Reuters Health.
I can truly feel the love on this board. I sincerely hope all my new found friends on here feel it also. Sure hope they give me more people marks.
Good Morning Bob. Trust you had a good night. Mine was fabulous. Went into the fine City Of Brotherly Love, called Philadelphia and saw the extremely well put together musical Mamma Mia. As you see there's more to life than penny stock boards for some of us.
Went over some of the posts. However, nothing worth commenting on IMO. Can't get into why AP does or doesn't use the KDS. One knows that businesses have their reasons and that the KDS isn't the answer to every thing. Techisbest had some of the better understanding posts, that's for sure. And, as an investor, I just can't get into technical nonsense like whether some incinerator mentions 1600 C hot gas or whatever.
Saw the news and I think one of the best responses on any fasc board came from Dr_Dufus, who wrote, "Pride and joy? Because AGES is at the top of the alphabetical listing? LMAO!" Because it appears the market and the investing public thought the same way. fasc took a little head spin and got dizzy at the withering heights of $.052 and has now tumbled down to $.047. Sort of what I expected. It did surprise me that it even broke $.05. However, market logic stated it wouldn't last. While it was just news, fasc investors, as I stated yesterday, will have to wait until this develops into something more beneficial.
LOL, you have to laugh at the moronic type of posting that goes on over on RB at times. One poster very stupidly wrote, "Yeah Honeywell can kiss our ASS....!lmaoeom" You can bet fasc doesn't think that way. If memory serves right, they still have Honeywell on the back burner. And, any investor would just love to welcome Honeywell aboard.
Another interesting post was from one called Onesleep, who wrote, "And what about those of us who bought at .52?" See, over there, there are still some posters who are honest and haven't given that averaging down and false buys and sells to impress. Now before someone gets their shorts up too tight, that's not to mean their aren't any honest posters here. How does one answer that poster? His response by the way was to a poster that wrote, "GOOD LUCK TO all and to those who bought at .4, .5 or greater, I think you will still see a profit!"
Oh, by the way, I didn't use profitable because you didn't. I guess you thought it was more interesting also.
IMO.
I can truly feel the love on this board. I sincerely hope all my new found friends on here feel it also. Sure hope they give me more people marks.
Really? For those that only got in at $.040 to $.06, I agree. For those that got in MUCH, MUCH higher, they'll have to patiently wait their turn for this to really get interesting.
Would you believe I'm toying with the idea of selling it soon with the expectation it'll go back down and I can buy more? Really, I am. Need it to go up just a wee bit more.
I can truly feel the love on this board. Gee, hope I get more people marks.
I believe the word "pocketed" could also be stretched to actually mean salaries, which the SDTC funding does allow for. And, for such a good job, even a hefty Christmas bonus.
You might note that one poster very extremely unhappy with the "chatter" had duly noted that, "...the additional $60 mil is a reference to what each of those groups brings to the table in eqipment, expertise etc...." It'd be interesting to see what fasc's share of that would be and how on earth they'll come up with it. Certainly not with their present inventory which has been depleted via small sales and obsolescence. And, loans appear to be out of the question. Intriguing to say the least. Gone to have to lean heavily on their expertise.
However, the exciting news for the end of the trading day is, drum roll (what again?) please. fasc has done it! Broke $.05. Appears to be closed at $.051. To the moon baby. Here we go. We're off.
IMO.
I can truly feel the love on this board.
Actually, even though it was written on this stock board and in response to a post, my intent was for it to be all encompassing of stock boards in general, not to single out fasc all by it's lonesome. Truly sorry about that.
Not meant to give anyone hoary hairs over it. In the realm of all things considered, they are meaningless. Don't you agree? IMO.
With just a few minutes to go, can fasc hold at $.05 or, dare we think, break $.05? My bet, and I again hope I'm wrong, is it won't.
I am truly starting to feel the love on this board.
Give it a break. If one checks your postings over time, they would more than likely ask themselves, "When was the last time WyoInvestor paid so much attention to a single poster?" No one has ever gotten that much attention from you. Ask yourself, why I?
Don't go there, I don't act. I'm very obvious, if anything.
And, aren't we trying to imput too much of what wasn't there. I think I liked Bob's response better and my response to him. And,, as I've stated, if the guilt's there then you address it, as I didn't put it there.
And, I know you all too well to completely understand that you don't in any way try to clarify anything.
And, LOL. The Demon wasn't taking a stab at you in any way. Hint. Notice whose post he responded to.
And, low and behold, is fasc at $.05.
IMO.
I assume you first paragraph was acting as a friendly board member? However, if you don't like certain posts, the best course of discreet action is to ignore it or keep your comments to yourself. I'm sure the board monitors would agree to that. Don't you?
I can truly feel the love on this board.
Don't agree or disagree, as no one really knows for sure both to as to the amount and expenditure of the new found money. However, could the mini-KDS be revived? Just a tantalizing thought.
As a fellow diabetic, then I feel comfortable in knowing you realize fully that one had absolutely nothing to do with the other.
I am truly starting to feel the love on this board.
So sorry to have to once again state a correction.
LOL, so, if you think I was "misreading" my services in the first place, then why did you try that little dance around it. No, no misreading at all. My intent was clear, concise and understood by whom it applied. And, just to let you personally in on a little secret, I did check with my partner, who agreed with my findings. Wanted to make sure no bias on my part was being interjected into my findings.
I don't try to make conversation. Just let it flow whereever it may take.
And, believe me when I say I am not trying to be friendly. One way or the other on a meanigless penny stock board makes no difference whatsoever. Plus, my experience has always been that these boards are only friendly if you think the way they do.
IMO.
For AgES & FASC it's news. But, it will take time to develop, as the project and total amount was just announced. Now don't quote me on this, as it is purely just a guess. There is some 80 million dollars to be shelled out. "IF" evenly divided, that would be about $8 million per. Not a bad amount at all. How much the individual companies would pocket, if any, would certainly be a lot smaller. At this point, specific details aren't there to ascertain what specifically the money should or would be spent on. Some think the possible development of the KDS6000. At present, I just take that as pure board chat, until FASC or AgES comes out with something different.
As far as AP is concerned. I totally agree with you. Its AP only, until something from a more reliable source states otherwise. Again, just board chatter. The least we can expect is that maybe they'll use the well "tested" KDS in their end of the project and FASC will benefit from it. With what is out there now, we can't even assume it. However, you can rest assure it'll be twisted and turned with all the awesome "potentials" that abound.
And, if one should dare think down the line, "SDTC will launch its next round of funding in early January 2005." However, there is nothing at this point to let us go there.
Overall feeling. It can only be good for FASC and their shareholders.
IMO.
Two items.
One: Never alluded to anyone out to get me. Did I? I believe what was scripted was, " See on this board, some try to bait others for whatever personal agenda they may have." "Others" was the word, not I or moi. I have sort of observed activity that leads me to believe that.
Nor did I mention that YOU were trying to bait me. If guilt falls there, then that's not on me, is it?
Two: I beg to differ with you. Being diabetic is not really tough. It certainly is a life style change. But, with all the other things God could have seen coming my way, diabetes beats a lot of them. Especially death. I have taken it as a blessing for what could have been. It's a small price that I have to pay for all my past transgressions. Very, very small. As a diabetic, I enjoy fine foods without sugar or with reduced sugar, etc. I exercise daily, which I didn't do before it. So, it has even helped me. Tough is only how one accepts what life has given them.
And, yes, I did skip over your second paragraph intentionally. If answered with more than I obviously implied, it would, as this post, be deleted.
haha I
IMO.
Love it when things work out. Another of my stocks just jumped $.10 on announcing today that results of their first Phase III clinical trial of XXXXXXXX(TM) have been published in the October 26, 2004 issue of Neurology. Now imagine if they get FDA approval, which as some of you may know could hopefully be the next step. Now that's not news, no, it's good news. Now great news would, of course, be approval. See the difference in news? Investors always evaluate the news and, then see if the market agrees with you.
I personally am waiting to see if the market agrees with my evaluation of FASC's news. So far it's on target. I don't expect to see $.05 today. Do hope I'm wrong.
IMO.
So Sorry, as a diabetic, I do not go to the bakery often, unless I know they have my favorite sugar free pastries.
However, kindly read that which I included, "Isn't it amazing what services can tell you about different reading patterns in various parts of the country."
The key word is "services." See, it's my services that tell me a lot of different, interesting facts.
And, I don't think I said at all what you implied. I'm very positive there were indeed trades made all over this wonderful world. And, FWIW, there's reading going on all over this wonderful planet 24/7. Pardon me if I choose not to elaborate further on my choice of words. See on this board, some try to bait others for whatever personal agenda they may have. Don't wish to go there, if you don't mind.
Stranger things have happened. Saw some trades this AM and was curious as to where they originated. Especially these:
10:49:04 AM Trade 0.049 37500
10:44:28 AM Trade 0.047 50000
9:31:42 AM Trade 0.045 50000
All were EST. None west of the Mississippi.
Isn't it amazing what services can tell you about different reading patterns in various parts of the country.
Was interested to see whether or not insider information may have been the cause of it.
Got some more work to do.
IMO.
Might be my over active imagination; but, I do believe I had the exact link at the bottom of my post.
Some real news:
(Thanks to my news flasher)
Sustainable Development Technology Canada Announces a Fifth Round of Funding $ 20.2 million for Clean Technology Projects
Ottawa, October 27, 2004 – The Board of Directors of Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) is pleased to announce approval in principle of funding for 10 new clean technology projects - an investment totaling $20.2 million.
These 10 projects are leveraged by an additional $60 million of investment from other private and public sources. This represents a 3:1 ratio of industry-partner contribution to SDTC investment – clearly demonstrating that industry is committed to developing technologies that will reap economic and environmental returns.
These technologies are targeted to the following sectors: energy production, power generation, energy utilization, forestry and agriculture, transportation and waste management. Initial demonstration of these technologies will be carried out in five provinces.
“With every new round of funding, the Board continues to be impressed with the innovative capabilities of Canada’s clean technology entrepreneurs,” said SDTC Chairman of the Board, James M. Stanford. “In this latest round, we received submissions that could substantially advance practical solutions to address air quality and climate change issues. These new projects will also engage most of Canada’s primary economic sectors, which are significant producers of greenhouse gas emissions. This funding round has exposed us to new technology areas, demonstrating that there are technology opportunities in the pipeline.
"New technologies are the framework to ensure Canada is at the forefront of climate change solutions,” said the Honourable R. John Efford, Minister of Natural Resources Canada. “Funding these projects will help technological potential become reality, as well as help Canada reduce its future emissions.”
"More and more, governments, businesses and investors are recognizing the clear connection between environmental sustainability and economic competitiveness," said the Honourable Stéphane Dion, Minister of the Environment. "This is the new global reality, and these are the type of investments that will help us address climate change, respect our Kyoto commitments, andassure Canada and Canadians continue to enjoy both a healthy environment and a strong and growing economy in the decades to come."
All funded projects must go through a stringent due diligence process that includes site visits to each applicant location. In this way SDTC gains a clear understanding of the consortium’s value proposition and performance expectations. However, SDTC’s interaction with applicants is more comprehensive than the screening and selection process.
“Our support isn’t just about funding”, said Vicky Sharpe, President and CEO of SDTC. “We help applicants build their entrepreneurial capacity by connecting them with partners along their particular technology’s supply chain, clarifying their business case, identifying project opportunities and preparing for commercialization. Our approach helps to de-risk clean technology investments so we can attract downstream private-sector investors that then opens up these opportunities for commercial success. SDTC and the entrepreneurs it supports are fueling the global clean technology market and thereby showing leadership in this vital and emerging marketplace.
Since April 2002, SDTC has completed five funding rounds, committed $92 million in 47 clean technology projects, and leveraged $268 million from project consortia members. SDTC currently manages $360 million in projects.
SDTC will launch its next round of funding in early January 2005.
About SDTC
Sustainable Development Technology Canada is a foundation created by the Government of Canada that operates a $550 million fund to support the development and demonstration of clean technologies — solutions that address issues of climate change, clean air, water quality and soil remediation to deliver environmental, economic and health benefits to Canadians.
An arm’s length, not-for-profit corporation, SDTC fills the void in the innovation chain between R&D and commercialization — helping clean technology developers move through the development and demonstration phases, in preparation for commercialization. SDTC applies a stringent due diligence process when selecting technologies to support and requires every applicant to involve a consortia of partners in their project.
SDTC encourages collaboration among private, financial, academic, publicsector partners and with the Government of Canada and all levels of government to build a sustainable development infrastructure in Canada.
In the October 2004 Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada reaffirmed its commitment and financial support for the development of innovative environmental technologies.
For more information, please contact:
Andrée Mongeon
Director of Communications
Sustainable Development Technology Canada
Tel: (613) 234-6313 x 224
a.mongeon@sdtc.ca
www.sdtc.ca
The listing of the 10 funded projects and its consortium members is as follows:
1. Lead Organization: Alternative Green Energy Systems, Montreal, Quebec
Economic Category: Forestry and Agriculture
Environmental Benefit: Climate Change/Clean Air
Consortium members:
University of Toronto–Forestry Department
UNISO-PMP—Project Management Group
Capitech—Hydro Quebec
Thermix Combustion Systems
First American Scientific Corp
Host Pulp and Paper Mills
Project Description:
This project will demonstrate a system for converting wet biomass waste materials into usable fuel that—as an alternative to fossil fuel—can reduce greenhouse gases and help eliminate detrimental climate change. Specifically, the project will employ patented AGES/KDS technology to dewater wet biomass waste materials such as pulp-and-paper biosolids—e.g. sludges and hog (wet bark)—kinetically, without heat , and using less than half the energy of conventional drying systems. The AGES fuel-preparation technology enables the combusting or value-added separation of wastes that otherwise carry heavy disposal costs.
2. Lead Organization: Atlantic Hydrogen, Fredericton, New Brunswick
Economic Category: Energy Production
Environmental Benefit: Climate Change/Clean Air
Consortium members:
PrecisionH2 Power Inc.
E-H2 Inc.
Hydrogenics Corporation
Energy Reaction Inc. (McGill University)
University of Toronto at Mississauga (Hydrogen Village)
University of New Brunswick
Purolator Courier Ltd.
Fuel Cells Canada
Hydrogen Engine Center
Fuel Cell Intelligence Ltd.
BOC
Project Description:
This project will demonstrate commercially viable grid-connected energy systems that integrate the CARBONSAVER™ hydrogen-delivery system developed by Precision H2 Power Inc. with modified internal combustion engines and with Hydrogenics Fuel Cell Engines. Being taken forward by Precision H2’s sister company, Atlantic Hydrogen Inc., CARBONSAVER™ offers advantages over existing technologies by competitively producing hydrogen without creating GHG emissions. While future hydrogen sourcing may come from renewable energy and water, it is widely recognized that the transition to a hydrogen economy will depend on extracting hydrogen from fossil fuels. The innovation demonstrated through this project is expected to be of particular importance for its efficacy in distributed power and refueling applications linked to the existing Natural Gas distribution grid.
3. Lead Organization: Atlantic Packaging Products Ltd., Scarborough, Ontario
Economic Category: Forestry and Agriculture
Environmental Benefit: Climate Change/Clean Air
Consortium Members:
Torftech (Canada) Inc.
Teng and Associates Inc.
Project Description:
This project proposes to build a demonstration system for creating process steam from paper mill residual biosolids. By generating steam in this way, the system is expected to reduce paper mill consumption of natural gas. The demonstration unit will use the patented TORBED® Expanded Bed Reactor to process residual biosolids from a 100% recycled fiber paper mill. The consortia group believes this demonstration unit will prove the Torftech system a viable alternative to handling paper mill biosolids.
4. Lead Organization: Dofasco Inc – ZyplexTM Technologies, Hamilton, Ontario
Economic Category: Transportation
Environmental Benefit: Clean Air
Consortium member:
General Motors of Canada Ltd.
Project Description:
Dofasco’s Zyplex™ Technologies has developed a new, lightweight structural laminate with potential to improve fuel efficiency by reducing the weight of motor vehicles. This project will demonstrate the efficacy of this new laminate by applying it to vehicle body panels, and will assess the savings achieved in automotive applications.
5. Lead Organization: Genesis Projects Corp., Calgary, Alberta
Economic Category: Waste Management
Environmental Benefit: Climate Change/Clean Air
Consortium members:
Bifano Farms Ltd.
The North Okanagan Regional District (NORD)
FULL Systems
RCM Digesters
University of British Columbia
Others (CETAC West, Olds Agricultural College and the Aggasiz Research Centre).
Project Description:
This project will demonstrate the environmental, technological and economic viability of an integrated, ‘biomass-to-renewable-energy ecosystem’. Including agricultural, municipal and industrial partners, the project’s demonstrated solution will replace current manure-management approaches, reducing the volume of waste currently going to landfill and rendering. The solution itself combines single-phased thermophylic anaerobic digestion (AD), co-generation, and hydroponics technologies. The project will demonstrate the ability of these technologies to mitigate environmental impact while recovering value for partners in the form of renewable energy, clean water, organic fertilizer, hydroponic cattle feed, and GHG emission-reduction credits.
6. Lead Organization: Great Northern Power Corp., Calgary, Alberta
Economic Category: Forestry and Agriculture
Environmental Benefit: Climate Change/Clean Air
Consortium members:
Powerhouse Engineering Inc.
Northland Forest Products Ltd.
Project Description:
This project will demonstrate a system for economically producing electricity and heat using wood waste. Intended for medium-sized wood-processing operations, this solution is designed to eliminate reliance on external energy suppliers. The benefits are reduced greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, and substantial energy cost savings for wood-processing operations.
7. Lead Organization: M.A. Turbo/Engine Ltd.,Burnaby, British Columbia
Economic Category: Transportation
Environmental Benefit: Clean Air
Consortium members:
Rival Technologies Inc.
Finning Power Systems
Project Description:
M.A. Turbo/Engine Ltd. has developed a water-injection system for marine diesels, achieving significant reductions of NOx and particulate emissions in this engine type. This project will extend the technology to heavy-duty engines—in mobile applications where engine loads vary constantly. The project will demonstrate the technology in maritime port equipment such as yard tractors, fork lifts and gantry cranes.
8. Lead Organization: QuestAir, Vancouver, British Columbia
Economic Category: Energy Production
Environmental Benefit: Climate Change/Clean Air
Consortium member:
ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company (EMRE), Annandale NJ
Project Description:
This project will demonstrate applications for Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA), involving the development and demonstration of technology for recovering hydrogen from various process streams in oil refineries. QuestAir believes that its compact, modular gas purification technology will allow oil refineries to economically recover and re-use waste hydrogen, reducing net hydrogen consumption and its associated GHG emissions. The recovered hydrogen will also help refineries meet low sulphur fuel regulations. Although not part of the project, QuestAir believes the product will be a platform that can be used for other applications such as the recovery of methane fuel from renewable sources such as landfill gas, which results in significant reductions in emissions of both greenhouse gases and local air pollutants from landfills.
9. Lead Organization: Stantec Global Technologies, Mississauga, Ontario
Economic Category: Energy utilization
Environmental Benefit: Climate Change/Clean Air
Consortium members:
Unisearch Associates Inc.
The University of Toronto
The Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement (OCETA)
Project Description:
This three-year project will include a full-scale demonstration of Stantec's proprietary Goodfellow EFSOP™ (Expert Furnace System Optimization Process) system, which is capable of continuously measuring the exhaust gases from a steelmaking Electric Arc Furnace (EAF). The project will involve three industries that have been identified as significant contributors to greenhouse gas generation in Canada: Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF) steelmaking, cement production, and thermal power. Many other high-temperature combustion processes would also benefit from real-time, robust off-gas characterization and control, both for energy optimization and for emission abatement. The purpose of the project is to apply the expertise and equipment developed for the Goodfellow EFSOP™ system, and to evaluate new optical instruments in other combustion-intensive industries.
10. Lead Organization: Xantrex Technology, Vancouver, British Columbia
Economic Category: Power Generation
Environmental Benefit: Climate Change/Clean Air
Consortium members:
Winergy AG
Loher GmbH
Project Description:
Xantrex and its consortium partners will develop and demonstrate a new integrated variable-speed drive system for large wind turbines. The system converts the highly variable mechanical energy from the wind into high-quality electrical power that can be supplied to the utility grid. The technology will reduce the cost and improve the performance of large wind turbines, enabling increased adoption of wind power generation, which is a renewable energy-generation technology that produces no direct greenhouse gases or other air pollution.”
© 2004 Sustainable Development Technology Canada
http://www.sdtc.ca/en/news/media_releases/media_10272004.htm
Lets see. First, for the sake of this board, lets assume I'm referring to another board, for example RB or the AOL board. If one were to post here or on RB or AOL on 4/2001 for example, it's a fairly safe assumption they bought this at $.10 or higher. Could feel real sorry for them. In fact, right around that time didn't it hit close to $.30. Sorrow would turn to more than pity if they didn't sell the stock. Then there were some that bought around Sept/Oct. 02 when it was around $.05. And, didn't sell it through Jan/March when it hit around $.20. And, still have it. Can't write how I feel about them. Hearts really bleeding, can't ya tell. But, then they for the RB board's sake have averaged down, sold & made a profit, etc., you know the lines. Blah! blah! blah! Same ol, same ol.
Did anyone call them "unfortunates" or is that they way others are portraying them. Moi, did not call them that.
And, that scenario about astute buyers that sold in the $.70 cent range, etc. LOL. I've been reading fasc boards for a while and you can take it to the bank, none of them were on any fasc board ever. Do you think any would have missed a chance of yelping about it? Not on the RB fasc board. I don't think so. Like the posters that always buying and can never prove the sales properly. Common, common occurrence on fasc boards. Read the scenarios so many times from so many posters. Almost like it was committed to memory. Just to impress a penny stock board?
Get some real news. That story is old, used and if one were to have read all my posts yesterday (especially the deleted ones) I am more than aware of the classification of this stock. And, have been since a real sad person first brought it to my attention. I say sad only because he was losing on it and wanted to know how to recoup some of his losses.
The pesos bit, big profit.--yaaaawwnnnn. Somehow it comes across as, for lack of the right term, since truth is not of pure essence on some threads, unreal. Again, an often repeated memorized line on fasc boards. They really have to get some new ones, don't you agree?
And, then there are the endless posts about the awesome "potential" that fasc has and the multitude of avenues fasc could go down. Seems they keep turning into brick walls. When I read nonsense posts such as those, it makes me really wonder and at times just burst out laughing. One gets the feeling posters like that have never, ever seen the inside of a broker's office. They haven't stood toe to toe with real investors discussing the on going ticker and the effect of the news on various aspects of it amongst themselves and with real live brokers. If they did, they wouldn't give a rats behind about potential that may never develop, if it's even there in the first place.
DREAMERS at best, is what they are and, they proliferate chat rooms. Most are (and its been written by good solid sources in magazine articles, newspapers, etc.) are sorrowful longs that bought the stock at high prices and didn't know when to get out as the stock was on the way down. Some of your same posters here post over on RB and it was proven to them many times. It was even told to them when the stock would go up and down and NONE, I repeat, NONE of them took advantage of it. All they could do was band together sorrowfully and attack the poster as a basher. Sadly though, he wasn't a basher; but, he was right. And, more than they'll ever admit, that's what they hated the most.
And, another real laugher is the endless, mindless posts that desperately try to impress how worthwhile the stock is by getting into "technical" issues, which they themselves for all their pretentiousness don't understand. And, it makes sense, as it's not their field of endeavor or learning and, it shows. Again, take a stroll to any brokerage house and you won't find such idle prattle.
Here is a sample of some of the investments houses I've been at many times, so I know what I'm talking about: UBS Paine Webber, Fidelity Investments, Penn Securities, Morgan Stanley, Janney Montgomery Scott, PNC Investments and Legg Mason. Add to that the Chicago, Philadelphia and New York Stock Exchanges. And, yes, I do trade frequently on line. In the last two years I have traded fasc four different times and, made money every single time. By the way, those facts at one time were posted on RB prior to the actual buying and selling so it was proven then and there. Not this pretend stuff you see on boards. And, so some of the less active minds don't go there, it wasn't GD2AUSSIE3. By the way, is that rather astute poster still around?
If one were to visit such places about 10 times a year, guess how many brokers you might talk with. Three or four a day is not uncommon at all. Now multiply. Now imagine working with them and for them for about 20 some years. I don't BS like some do on chat boards.
And, since I retired at age 53, I have the freedom to go anywhere, at anytime, I want.
If it makes one feel any better and sleep at night, Okay, just this once, I really feel sorry for just one of them. Hope they can feel the pain? If they need someone to feel sorrow for them as it was put, then they don't belong in stock trading at all.
And, just so it's understood. I never wish that any stock does bad. Investors put their hard earned money into stock and I wish they all do well. Unfortunately, it is the market and we all can't. But, with proper DD and experience, losses can be cut to a minimum.
IMO.
It was a good laugh to start the morning.
One might also want to note FASC whose future will depends on continuing to maintain cash flow via revenues, and then growing the revenue base and its gross margins from there has traded 289,040 shares and (drum roll, please) dropped to $.043. GREAT time to average down. Why the ask is at $.044 and the bid is at $.043. Really feel sorry for any buyers that bought last week and the week before at much higher prices. Man can you imagine how averaged down some might be that unfortunately bought this stock when it was really, really up there at above $.35 and higher. OOOUUUCCCCHHHH! I have a feeling FASC just might see $.040 again. Sincerely, sincerely hope not. don't you?
Psst! IMO.
Our big sale to ALMI while it did absolutely nothing for FASC, it sort shows how the ongoing success will be a function of a continued growing revenue base, the start of earnings, and then continued growing earnings. That baby is up $.03 today. And, with only 138,650 shares traded.
Psst! IMO.
chambers it really doesn't matter. I'll have Rafael636 post on RB. I see you didn't delete your friends snidely put response. I guess it would be acceptable for me to post in the same kind vein. Wouldn't it?
Good try but no cigar!!!!!!!!!
How much succeeding growth there will be is yet to be determined, obviously
Help is on the way to really enable you to try to do such a calculation, so the board will understand you. Never know, then when you post about the growth, it just might become more obvious.
How to Calculate Growth Rates
When savvy Foolish investors study companies, a little math is involved. It can be intimidating until you learn it and practice it a little. Here's a short lesson on calculating growth rates. Imagine the Wicker Sink Co. (ticker: SIEVE), with sales of $12 million in 2001 and $48 million in 2004. If you have a slightly fancy calculator, it might actually sport a feature that calculates growth percentages for you. If not, here's what to do:
Divide $48 million by $12 million, and you'll get 4. This means that sales quadrupled, or increased by a growth multiple of 4. That doesn't translate to a gain of 400%, though. (After all, doubling is a gain of 100%, not 200%.) To get the percentage, you need to take the growth multiple, subtract 1, multiply by 100, and then tack on a percentage sign. So 4 minus 1 equals 3. And 3 times 100 is 300%.
Another way to approach it is to take the $48 million and subtract the $12 million, getting $36 million, which represents the growth. Divide it by $12 million, and you'll get 3. Multiply that by 100, and you've got 300%. Same answer.
One last valuable step is to annualize the growth rate -- in other words, to figure out roughly by how much Wicker Sink's sales are growing each year. To do this, we first need to figure out the time period involved. From 2001 to 2004 is three years, so we'll be taking the third, or cube, root of the growth multiple. (If the time period was five years, you'd raise the multiple to the 1/5 power. For 8.4 years, it would be the 1/8.4 power.)
You'll need either a computer with a spreadsheet program or a calculator with a "^" button -- one that raises numbers to various powers. Raise the growth multiple of 4 to the 1/3 power, and you'll get 1.59. Now subtract 1, multiply by 100, and you've got 59% as the approximate average annual growth rate.
It is tricky stuff, until you get used to it. Practice it a little, and you'll be happy you did.
You'll find support and help from fellow Fools on our Reading Financial Statements discussion board. Pop in to see what folks are saying.
The Motley Fool ®
Investing Basics
Read the paragraph above and its theme revolves a bit around compare. 1 + 1 = 2, you should now be able to figure that one.
Clearly? Wrong word. To date, nothing is clear with FASC. That should have had an "IMO" as again, that's all it is. And, after 8 + years, beginning doesn't seem to fit. And, if things are really as obvious as "you" think, then they should not have to be stated to try to convince others of what you are in fact trying desperately to convince yourself. We'll have to wait and see if the stock dilution trend has indeed ended. Since there is no back up for that, that also should have an "IMO."
And, please, try to understand fundamental analysis doesn't stop with the "couple" little favorable numbers that support the thinking of a limited few. "Fundamental analysis looks at things from revenues and debt, to ratios like price/earnings and debt/equity." If you read it, the author uses the word "from" meaning you don't stop there. And, you cannot say with any degree of certainty that the debt one sees on the reports is "ALL" the debt the company has. It has been well documented that sometimes debt is cleverly hidden in other area and more specifically in contracts that shareholders don't have access to. There again, "IMO" would have been appropriate. You really should learn to use that as most of the time it is only your opinion and not fact.
Clearly, the future will depend on continuing to maintain cash flow via revenues, and then growing the revenue base and its gross margins from there. Nothing is that clear and it hasn't been for over 8+ years. And, haven't you been saying this for at least four years. Really gives "clear" meaning to the phrase, ONWARD THROUGH THE FOG! Will it ever lift? Why is it that posters use the word "clearly" when in fact nothing is clear and they haven't proven it in thousands of posts? It then only becomes a self serving word and an empty one at best.
First point has nothing to do with either of my posts or the one you wrote, so there's no need going over something immaterial.
Your second paragraph should most definitely have IMO after it, as that's all it is. You'd be surprised how many accountants work for investment firms and indeed do give advice. Even in the small private sector that you operated in, accountants have given advice and even tips on stocks they've come across while doing audits or in speaking with their clients.
Third and fourth paragraphs appear to be just a throw in for self serving reasons. It should be understood by all and not worth mentioning. Therefore, not worth commenting on.
The fifth paragraph is not totally true. While risk/return on investment is a priority for end results in any investment, the analysis cannot always properly measure either the risk or the "benefit." Albeit, the reason why investment brokers, etc., tend to use ratios and charts more as gauges, which generally most penny stocks under a dollar always fail. Good example is FASC It fails almost every single , if not all, ratios possible and as far as any competent analysis on it, it would clearly demonstrate it is not a worthwhile risk and has little if any benefit. Even according to Penny Stocks: The Book, "You may as well have been throwing darts at the stock page in the newspaper!" And, according to the same book, "Understand that 95% of penny stock companies should be considered bad or dangerous investments.
From the book: As you become more experienced, you will learn that a good penny stock trader can make money on good and bad penny stocks alike, simply by investing at the right time. Since every stock fluctuates, you shall see that money can be made by buying even the worst companies at the right time, and money can be lost by buying the best companies at the wrong time. When did you buy? Don't answer, as I really don't care.
You really should have read it, as I have, before just throwing it on the board. It literally goes against your thinking, especially as it pertains to FASC.
I found this particularly interesting:
Fundamental Analysis:
This approach uses the company's financial statements. It looks at the financial numbers and ratios, as well as the corporate situation. We feel that fundamental analysis is a great starting point for screening and researching penny stocks, and that it is an effective method of finding the best companies to invest in.
Fundamental analysis looks at things from revenues and debt, to ratios like price/earnings and debt/equity. It then compares these with other stocks in general, and with direct competitors. Using fundamental analysis, you will also look at such criteria as management team effectiveness, press releases, brand recognition, barriers to entry for new competitors to the sector, among a host of other parameters.
FASC woudn't compare.
zero you should learn to answer with your head. When in the business I am in, you meet and deal with people every single day. I deal mostly with actuaries, lawyers, accountants and brokers of various businesses. You obviously couldn't comprehend that.
Lesson number two. One does not necessarily have to be a millionaire to deal or even know people.
Lesson number three. A good investor will look at all aspects of the markets, not just penny stocks. Again, you wouldn't know.
Jagman. Excellent advice. Agree 100% No broker or accountant worth their salt would ever encourage or advise their clients to invest in a 5 cent OTC stock. Most would politely laugh in your face. And, I over the years have litterally dealt with a couple hundred very reasonable and intelligent ones. Only on a penny stock board will you find such a rarity. And, I'll leave it at that.
Actually, that's not true. Each brokerage house has their own in house rules concerning the trading of penny stocks. Before I started trading on line, I dealt with several firms that where more than willing to trade. In fact, there were very few that wouldn't. One for example is PNC Investments out of Louisville, Kentucky. Prudential Securities another. These are by no means rinky dink organizations. Sorry, I don't agree with your post one bit, especially since my vast experience has more than demonstrated the very opposite. Most penny stock investors don't go through these type brokerage houses as it's much cheaper to trade on line with Ameritrade, Scottrade, etc.
And, I doubt that you'll find any that will truly be surprised at the PPS risk/benefit ratios, once they actually research some of these companies. If anything, the opposite would be more true, The PPS would be as they expect. Most would laugh at the ratios, if anything. Now that doesn't mean one in a thousand won't come along and break the mold and surprise everyone. I wouldn't be trying desparately to fit FASC into that mold for any self-serving reasons.
IMO.
Does anyone else think the CEO might have chewed off a bit too much when he forcasted a $1.00 by this end of this year? Just wondering.
Is it me or does this stock go down every time a PR comes out?
What if? One looks at the bid $.045 and, the ask at $.05 and you wonder if you should buy more. Especially when you consider a "what if?" What if this company came out with a half decent PR touting a couple sales and the PPS went up to $.10. Double your money. Can happen. Course there's always a pessimist that saays, what if it went down to $.04 after you bought more. Can happen. Chances one takes based on gut feelings with such cheap stocks.IMO.