Replies to post #18217 on Empire Energy Corporation Intl. (fka EEGC)

[EarnestDD]

That is NOT proof that EEGC has ANY flare gas technology.
Nor that the Technology Malcolm CLAIMS to have actually is viable.

And as to my proving it doesnt exist, Links to things that do NOT exist??? LOL
Thats impossible.

But I challenge you to post a verifiable link from a third party source that definitively shows that Malcolm has any Flare gas technology.
A patent filing would be nice.
jmo

You want a link to show it exists? How about actually seeing it with your own eyes. Ride through Oklahoma, Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and when tall towers at the oil refineries appear, look up and you will see flames shooting out of the top. If no flames they are capturing the waste and process. I am sure you will find the same picture in every country that produces oil.

[BobSinCA]

Not sure the point of the post:

- If flames are not coming out, then flare gas technology is already in place, don't need EEGC.

- If flames are coming out, then there is a business opportunity for flare gas technology, but that is not the same as saying said flare gas technology actually exists, or that EEGC has rights to it.

Does EEGC have rights to any flare gas technology?

The August 20, 2009 PR says that Mr. Bendall has

offered to bring into Empire the North and South American rights for a very significant proprietary (flare gas) technology

. And this is not a gift from Mr. Bendall. The same PR goes on to say:

Valuation, validation, commercialization and implementation are now being quantified by an outside party to set commercial terms for the transaction.

There have been no PRs or filings to indicate that the referenced transaction has actually happened. An 8-K (material event) and/or 10-K/10-Q filings (related party transaction) would be required.

Indeed, the July 9, 2010 PR is the next PR which even refers to the technology, and it simply says that

Empire has first option on the North and South American rights

Net: the company's own words in PRs, and lack thereof in filiings, support an assertion that EEGC does not currently have rights to such technology.