Sulphco, Inc. (SUF)

metoo105 (99.70) Submitted: 4/28/07 6:12 PM

Recs: 1 | Rec This

You really should not continue to spread lies about this company as it is trade libel when you get your facts so wrong. I am neither long nor short, so don't get up in arms about a purported agenda. For instance, here you've clearly overstated by a mile or two your claim that "no respectable company wants to work [with] them." And it really bothers me that others would read what you've written and take it as fact.

In addition, Dr. is a silly honorific, no matter who is claiming rights to it. Perhaps you are the kind of person for whom degrees matter, but since my wife is an academic, I say with some personal experience that you are probably mistaken here. Further, is it the kind of thing that you would get so hung up on that it might keep you from visiting your podiatrist or chiropractor? Personally, I think that it's sad that people might need external validation of that sort, and that level insecurity while suggestive in Gunnerman's case is far from determinative of the prospects of this company.

The sonocracking technology is clearly not worthless, since others have paid money for the patents. That act gives them value. The point you want to make is that its not "commercializable." But even as to that question, the verdict is not yet out.

Personally, my suspcion is that when folks need to engage at the level you have in this case that there might be something of note here. You've provided no new evidence and have simply made Alpert's innuendo even worse but stating it with certainty.

If you step back, can't you simply appreciate that this stock presents questions that don't have answers for the likes of you or me? Just because you are on the short side cannot save you from being a two-bit hack stock promoter(of an idea)/p(d)umper.

Make a claim, then stick with facts and logic. It's really kind of disgusting that yours is the most recommended bit of analysis on this stock.

How about we identify the real conundrum here, which is that given Gunnerman's majority stake, how was the putsch engineered or executed without his assistance? That seems to me like it might be something real and negative and new that might be said about this company, which is that engineered his overthrow so as to boost the share price.

But even if that were the case, I am still personally somewhat impressed that managed to get their hands on a GE guy.

Report this Post Reply

Allstar13913 (99.90) Submitted: 4/30/07 11:13 PM

Recs: 3 | Rec This

In response to your comments above:

I am neither long nor short in this stock in real life, but I do believe it is worthless. I will attack all your points, point by point, showing the faulty logic you use.

First, this is what my 5 second pitch of the stock was. I have a more detailed analysis, but I gave the short and sweet version because frankly, I was in a hurry. Look to stocklemon.com or thestreet.com for a very detailed analysis on why this stock is a fraud.

Second, I believe the fake doctorate was a very important piece of the puzzle in regards to this stock. I do believe degrees matter, and I wouldn't go to a doctor if he didn't have a degree in medicine. Likewise, I wouldn't trust a man who said he was a Doctor of Internal medicine, if he didn't have a degree, but rather picked up his knowledge her or there.

Furthermore, I believe any company that is fraudulent in some aspects isn't the best place to put my money. I want to invest in companies that value their shareholders and treat them properly as Warren Buffett would say. I want our interests to be aligned. In Sulphco's case, those interests don't align. I believe that the company values family connections over its own stockholders.

Third, you are right, this stock presents questions that aren't answered. That's the problem. I want answers! i refuse to invest in heresay, innuendo, or ideas. I believe there are a lot of companies that are full of promise and short of results. If you look at my scorecard, I'm short a lot of biotech stocks. I don't like them because they always seem long on hype and short on results, much like Sulphco.

Fourth, Sulphco is losing money! If their tech is so revolutionary, why aren't they making a mint? I mean, every company in the business would want to profit from it. This is not the case. This purported technology is rather just a smoke screen for raising capital.

Fifth, to your comment that I'm a two bit hack who is stock pump dumping, you must be deluded. I'm giving you my honest opinion. Just because you don't agree, don't accuse me of doing something unethical. This stock is crap, and I call it like I see it. My logic isn't faulty, and now you've received your two minutes of fame for attacking/insulting me. Good for you. Write an analysis someone actually cares about or agrees with, and maybe you can be the majority bull winner to pro my con. Until then, get real.

Final Analysis:
Don't buy the hype. This company is mismanaged and will lose you money.

Report this Post Reply

metoo105 (99.70) Submitted: 5/04/07 3:32 PM

Recs: 1 | Rec This

Look friend, my apologies. My rhetoric sometimes gets away from me.

Still you overstate and restate innuendo that was first stated in Barrons. If there was more on this stock in either the street or stocklemon, I cannot find it. Though I doubt that they'd have much more to add.

I am stretching my memory here, but I did write a bull pitch on this stock way back when. I've since retired the pick. My reasoning was that it had been unduly beaten down from the Alpers article that, while suggestive, was still short on facts. My reasoning was that Gunnerman has already struck out once with big oil so it was strange that they'd still return his calls if they thought nothing was there. As an add-on, I'd say it's also now fairly positive that they've been able to get a GE guy to lead their operations, since they do tend to have a pretty good repuation.

I am afraid that the facts are still not here or there. But in the absence of real facts, I say it's a mystery not a fraud and certainly not worthless. If you agree with me that it's somewhat of a mystery, then all you have to do is take what might be a very low probability and multiply it times its potential utility to get some approximation of an expected value greater than zero. So you've got to be claiming here that the probability is zero of some positive utility invention. I respectfully disagree as does the market at any price greater than bankruptcy.

Report this Post Reply

smitty1066 (< 20) Submitted: 8/26/07 10:24 PM

Recs: 0 | Rec This

I'm glad you didn't interrupt the flow of your prose with any facts. Ranting is still ranting regardless of how insistent it seems. If I were short this stock, as I'm guessing you are, I'd quietly back away from that position. As more of the sonocrackers come online, rants are going to sound even more hysterical. Empirical evidence is difficult to shout down. Incidentally, "the purported Dr." knows more about the technology than anyone-and as you pointed out, is the largest stockholder-and is accumulating more.

Report this Post Reply

Allstar13913 (99.90) Submitted: 8/26/07 11:12 PM

Recs: 1 | Rec This

lol, I love Griefers, who are <20 in score telling me things. Okay, so tell me why this stock is so great. I'm waiting.

Allstar

Report this Post Reply

Allstar13913 (99.90) Submitted: 8/27/07 12:57 AM

Recs: 0 | Rec This

I really shouldn't even be doing this, but here is more than a rant. It's Baron's article talking about all the things that I belive make this stock a total pile of you-know-what.

http://online.barrons.com/public/article/SB113780731535052643-VbWE5izTTfOhnTVDA0sZ_FcUjyw_20060222.html?mod=9_0002_b_free_features

Take a look. I don't wanna have to say I told you so but....

Report this Post Reply

arm847 (34.38) Submitted: 10/22/07 12:36 AM

Recs: 3 | Rec This

you fellas should listen to the conference calls. I picked up on a statement made by the CEO in the last call that indicated that they had not completed a mass balance determination on the process- ie. they aren't knowledgeable about what happens to the sulphur after the sono cracking event. I've already made a pile of money trading this, but last week I went to puts (just in time to get the boost from a 336 point drop in the market), because the hype won't carry this one any more.
I'm a geek, and with some chem e background. I know that 1) refiners don't go anywhere without knowing mass balance, because they have to account for all mass in and out of the process and 2) if Sulphco doen't accumulate some sulphure bearing effulent from the process, then sulphur will still be present in the ouput of the process, making marketing of the product as a light, sweet product with premium prices, impossible. Now, Sulphco's process may truly cause some change of state of the sulphur compounds in the sour oil, but without some way to remove it from the effulent, that change is meaningless. The business model, which is predicated on having a price premium to charge from the outcome of the process, is broken unless they can prove that S is removed from the product stream, something they have apparently NOT done.

Their recent pitch to float 9 million more shares would seem to be their death knell, because they have not produced positive product results, although they seem to have solved the reliablity of the equipment- their previous hurdle.

I haven't read a darn thing on this in the financial papers- so don't throw those at me. I'm going on technical background, and common sense. I respect the current CEO, but think he might have bitten off more than is chewable.

Report this Post Reply

Gtrinvestor (99.98) Submitted: 3/24/08 6:25 PM

Recs: 0 | Rec This

Alstar -
Thanks for all the info. You have hardened my resolve that this co. is at best a shot in the dark co., and at worst a sham.

Report this Post Reply