That is simply wrong. They permit a process that
Post# of 43066
Posted On: 07/31/2014 7:57:59 PM
Re: StockSpock #11579
That is simply wrong. They permit a process that conforms to the emission and other standards set. At no point in the process do they try to determine if it will work. Maybe that is how so many of you have lost so much money. You lack a basic understanding of permitting. Not surprised.
And none of the items a,b, or c bother me. I mean they actually lose less money when the machines don't run so not getting a permit would have actually helped them prolong their cash flow but that is their problem not mine. And if they stay current restricted holders will convert their shares to free trading and sell them. Of course an attempt will be made to explain that selling as mysterious entities communicating via signals and naked shorting markers.
Now I answered your question now answer mine. Which statement is the lie? This one from the July 1 PR:
"The water-cooling systems were being heated during the coldest days, however the heating systems were unable to keep up with the high winds and sub-zero temperatures. The damaged water-cooling components have been repaired.
We also had a major condenser failure which necessitated replacement of all of the condensers. The failing condensers allowed for the ingression of water into our fuel storage tanks but the fuel storage tanks did not sustain damage. The condensers have now been replaced with a model known to perform well in the systems over the past three years and the fuel storage tanks have been cleaned."
Or this version from the 10Q:
"The Company had to shut down its production late in the fourth quarter of 2013 due to severe cold weather that caused damage to condensers and other components of our processors. Management estimates that the repair of the processors will require the expenditure of between $175,000 and $200,000. At July 28, 2014, we lacked the working capital or access to bank credit to make these repairs. "
And none of the items a,b, or c bother me. I mean they actually lose less money when the machines don't run so not getting a permit would have actually helped them prolong their cash flow but that is their problem not mine. And if they stay current restricted holders will convert their shares to free trading and sell them. Of course an attempt will be made to explain that selling as mysterious entities communicating via signals and naked shorting markers.
Now I answered your question now answer mine. Which statement is the lie? This one from the July 1 PR:
"The water-cooling systems were being heated during the coldest days, however the heating systems were unable to keep up with the high winds and sub-zero temperatures. The damaged water-cooling components have been repaired.
We also had a major condenser failure which necessitated replacement of all of the condensers. The failing condensers allowed for the ingression of water into our fuel storage tanks but the fuel storage tanks did not sustain damage. The condensers have now been replaced with a model known to perform well in the systems over the past three years and the fuel storage tanks have been cleaned."
Or this version from the 10Q:
"The Company had to shut down its production late in the fourth quarter of 2013 due to severe cold weather that caused damage to condensers and other components of our processors. Management estimates that the repair of the processors will require the expenditure of between $175,000 and $200,000. At July 28, 2014, we lacked the working capital or access to bank credit to make these repairs. "
(0)
(0)