That the self-professed expert on all things HTM, 'gems',' alas sees fit to cease avoiding answering the pointed questions I'd posed about a week ago?
In particular, I wait with bated breath for a stellar explication as to why HTM--with it's much touted great prospects going forward-- has not one bit participated in the considerable market run-up spanning the last month or so. No doubt we'll hear still another time how fabulously positive developments, inc. a marked ramp up in the share price, represent nothing less than a 'lock' proposition.
And as for the posters who predict that 'the smart money' entities will soon leap at the opportunity to buy shares of this soon-to-be-smokin' stock, the float on HTM, much less the clear absence of liquidity-- of the ability to have large #s of shares easily traded, certainly runs afoul of your bold and 'bullish' scenario.
Finally, gems, spare me a repeat of your attempted evasion, rather than having addressed head-on, much less answering the specific questions I'd posed, you tried the 'ol' 'answer a question instead by asking your own ploy'- in this case really dumb ones.
So once again, here's your opportunty to establish your investor's bona fides, slick!
1. How many total days of commercial operation have been tallied at an Emidio since Nov. 2011?
2. Commensurately, in that span of time the total gross and net revenues produced have been?
3. And where is the so-called 'compensation' (or 'credits' or whatever the heck feckless HTM mgt, wrote into that disastrous contract with SAIC)?
4. AND what is the total of such to be?
5. And how does that purported total amount of 'compensation' for SAIC's FAILURE to meet the contractually obligated deadline of Nov. 2011 to reach full commercial operating status compare with the total lost revenues from the non-commercial operating status at an Emidio over about a one -year subsequent period extending from Nov. 2011? And, how in the world, at ths juncture, would some potential and measly SAIC 'credit' even remotely compensate for the numerous ways shareholders have been financially damaged by this still ongoing fiasco, including the patently obvious loss of any remaining crediblity (in the market's view) of HTM management?
6. Why would the share diluting fiancings of 2012 have still been necessary had that contract with SAIC been properly written, so as to have fully protected shareholders, by means of assured and immediately retrievable funds, and as opposed to the evident mere credits' which can ONLY be obtaine dif SAIC were to be awarded the contract to construct an Emidio 2?
7. is it your like sage contention that reagrdless of the state of operations at an Emidio for the prolonged period in question, that the initial share diluting financing in return forbut $750 K from Lincoln (merely to cover salries, etc), would have been necessary?
8. What has been the total share dilution from the 2012 composite financing deals?
9. Finally, why, despite the latest company news release about 2012 'developments' and projected plans for 2013 not been met by a bump up in the stock price?