Sulphco, Inc. (SUF)

BigDMan64 (99.79) Submitted: 9/21/07 1:51 AM

Recs: 3 | Rec This

If you read my comments, I never questioned their technology...rather I question how a company with no revenues and no book value could be justify doubling without any significant news. So lets, for the sake of argument agree with your premise and say that management is sound and the technology is both feasible and needed. At what point do they start making revenues by commercializing their process. Secondly, at what point do those revenues actually exceed G&A expenses where a profit will be turned. $ 50 a share? Maybe but it will be a long time and a lot of profitability and acceptance of their process before they can justify that kind of market cap. My math says that would make them a $ 5 billion dollar company. If I am missing something, would love for you to enlighten me. The world is full of great ideas that never make a profit. Something smells that way to me here...thats all.

Report this Post Reply

jaygatsby49 (99.57) Submitted: 9/21/07 2:11 PM

Recs: 2 | Rec This

I guess you never took a HS History class. Zhukov was a Russian general in World War II.

Report this Post Reply

mfgd (91.58) Submitted: 9/21/07 2:17 PM

Recs: 0 | Rec This

I havn't bashed the stock, but I did listen to the last conference call. Management gave excuses for delays and could not give any timeline for "validating technology"

Report this Post Reply

chouhung (99.24) Submitted: 9/23/07 12:07 AM

Recs: 0 | Rec This

I've asked a refining scientist friend about this type of technology. Basically, using ultrasound will degrade many good chemicals in crude in addition to removing sulfur. After being suckered on a stock previously, I've learned not to believe everything that comes out of a penny-stock CEO's mouth.

Report this Post Reply

ikkyu2 (98.58) Submitted: 10/22/07 9:04 PM

Recs: 1 | Rec This

You can't hear any arguments because you're reading text on a computer screen. Set your computer up to speak displayed text if you really want to hear us.

Here's an argument you won't like: You're going to lose all your money. See you at $0.

Report this Post Reply

rcwcfa (< 20) Submitted: 10/23/07 9:50 AM

Recs: 0 | Rec This

If you are interested in a cogent set of reasoning this company is worth zero, read my post of October 22, 2007.

By-the-way, Marshall Georgi Zhukov was not born until after the Napoleonic Wars. He led the defense of the Soviet Union and was instrumental in the collapse of Nazi forces, not French forces. If your stockpicking is as precise as your history, then this pick is doomed to the scrapheap of history.

Report this Post Reply

BigDMan64 (99.79) Submitted: 10/23/07 7:17 PM

Recs: 0 | Rec This

Combining rcwcfa's reasoning with the scientific presentation presented by arm847 confirms that your name calling and bashing of those of us who were short this stop prior to it's meteoric rise recently for no apparent reason was maybe a little too much, too soon. I think there are compelling arguments from a diverse group of CAP'ers that would indicate that your on the wrong side of this issue. Maybe an apology is in order? Seems like that arm847 has a much more significant chemistry background than you do and rcwcfa, and many others from the financial side have sure made compelling arguments on why their financial statement presentation is an absolute fraud. See you at ground zero willy...if you don't bail and save your illicit gains on this stock before hand.

Report this Post Reply

SBeren (54.75) Submitted: 10/23/07 8:51 PM

Recs: 0 | Rec This

More like $0.50

Report this Post Reply

solitaryway (90.00) Submitted: 10/24/07 3:40 AM

Recs: 0 | Rec This

If you don't like the bashers, you should check out the innumerable pumpers on the Yahoo boards. But unlike the bashers here, who all argue with sound reasoning from a chemical and financial standpoint, the Yahoo pumpers use reasoning like "Oil over $85! Buy now!" or "SUF TO $50 BY CHRISTMAS!!!"

My money is on the folks here...

Report this Post Reply

cmbourne (20.53) Submitted: 11/05/07 9:37 PM

Recs: 0 | Rec This

I took HS chemistry, but I have never seen a clear explanation of what these people actually do to the oil..Please explain it to me .Feel free to use chemical and mathematicak formulas as nededed

Report this Post Reply

SewellMarbury (53.51) Submitted: 1/17/08 4:03 PM

Recs: 0 | Rec This

See you at .50, or worse. Yeah, the Zhukov bit was lame. You're under 20. Stocks like this are why.

Report this Post Reply