InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 484
Posts 60708
Boards Moderated 18
Alias Born 09/20/2001

Re: luken201 post# 33907

Saturday, 04/28/2012 12:33:17 AM

Saturday, April 28, 2012 12:33:17 AM

Post# of 35802
The Good, the Bad, but maybe no ugly.

The post I am responding to is confusing.

They have supposedly acquired tech from someone else that will boost productivity. Great - but that also indicates that they have no groundbreaking tech of their own, doesn't it?

I have credibility issues with Taylor, and the fact that the company keeps Taylor involved give me credibility issues with the company.

Why do you need a Webinar if there is no novel tech?

Webinar's each quarter starting in the 3rd quarter.



Cash flow is fine but Peter is "reaching out to investment houses".

Cash flow can not support organic growth it seems.

I would need one very important question answered before I invest any additional monies in this company ( I own shares from the old GRNO). - Are we investing in a business enterprise that has proprietary technology or are we investing in a business enterprise that is out there duking it out with competitive companies with access to the same technology?

At this point, there is probably money to be made based on survivability vs extinction of the company. I would give survivability more than even money and it is probably a bargain at this price.

Still, until enough information is available to allow investors to do reasonable DD on the company - I don't think that this is a company that you can make a commitment to.

For reference:
http://www.greatplainsexaminer.com/2012/01/10/welcome-to-boomtown-oil-production-raises-health-concerns/

http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/miswaco/industry_articles/HyFrac_DrillFluids_articlePDF.ashx