Read the original post, it was myristic.
Your prices seem too high. PKO continues to slide lower taking the fatty acid complex down with, but whatever. Its the sales that count from now on. All the happy chatter about target this and that will be meaningless (as if it ever has been anything else).
Okay, its three tons sugar to produce one ton of myristic acid. The sugar will cost $1,200 and myristic acid is selling for $1,000. Ouch!
But you say Solazyme is targeting $3,000 a ton. To which shorts will laugh knowingly . . . myristic acid hasn't sold for that much since 2011.
Do you have any other tricks up your sleeve?
Please, the pump preceding the secondary created the "momo". Then came the dump.
You only have another eight months until the next secondary.
kingof, could you provide a supporting source for your comment that DOW Chemical's 60 M gallon offtake agreement has has been terminated?
d___who, this is another of your typically deceptive posts to this board.
goozle developed evidence clearly demonstrating your dual identity. Rather than respond to that evidenced (of course there is no reasonable explaination) you retreat to your fanasty about others having alternate ID. What a waste of time reading. But then that is about all you ever do. So go get crushed.
Really, you have to be kidding? Process engineers only know how much is needed from past experience. Now tell me, just how many 100,000 MT algae processing plants are there. And while you are at it, explain why those who engineered algae processing plants would share their knowledge with Solazyme. Might also provide your own cogent rationale for the power shortage,.
You might as well also explain why Solazyme is no longer providing a name plate capacity for the Moema plant. Suppose those precise process engineers can't figure that one out.
Did you consider that the electrical issue arose during commission because far more power was needed than had been thought necessary? The delays are from a change order expanding the cogeneration capacity.
The source of the problem needs a rational explaination for why the original plan was not sufficient.
Am reminded of last summer's Roquette comment, "Solazyme does not understand production."
But it was only the shills on this board who claimed an April opening. It was those shills, and there are many on this message board who insisted Wolfson was sticking to April even though in its filing March 25, production was pushed out to the end of the second quarter (and capacity of 100,000MT was replaced with Moema will have a name plate capacity, whatever the he11 that means).
So put the blame on the shills who post here every day, all day. They will miss lead you every time . . . and have been doning it for years. They are the ones who need the class action.
Failure to agree on construction buildout of was the expressly stated reason Wolfson gave for the breakup. You are just making up the claim there are many other reasons. The build out of Phase III was the issue, in Solazymes words: Solazyme cited "divergent views on an acceptable commercial strategy and timeline for the manufacturing and marketing of joint venture products"
There is no business dispute until Solazyme complied with the process for applying to the BOD as provided in the contract.
I point out Solazyme has ripped off Roquette for 20 million plus, the JV costs for two years and funding a purpose built plant, and you response is what? Some about what I said. What shame faced deception! As if some thing I said can have anything to do with whether Solazyme is ripping off Roquette. Deal with the fact goozle and quit playing the ad hominem game. The fact is that Wolfson has represented they have everything from the disolution, Roquette's 20 million and all the tech rights. And why do you say that he should be showered with all these gifts? Because Wolfson cited "divergent views on an acceptable commercial strategy and timeline for the manufacturing and marketing of joint venture products"
So now you are admitting Solazyme can lose, sure won't get that impression for your writings, but having read them I can certainly understand why you would not put any confidence in them.
I will stand by my opinion, Solazyme loses and loses surprisingly big time.
Nonsense. FIrst, the JV agreement required Solazyme to petition its BOD to move to phase iii, if it declined to do so, Solazyme was barred from reurging the question for one year; if the BOD again delcined, then Solazyme could proceed to arbitation. Second, Solazyme's failure to follow this procedure constituted the breach. Third, the breach invalidated any "disolution". Fourth, what to do about it is what is taking the arbitrators so long and anything the arbitrator does is a lose for Solazyme, i.e. Solazyme is claiming they have everything, so they can only lose.
You point out that these are "very complex issues". Agreed, but if you read the posts by goozle and others, it is as simple as can be and Solazyme can't lose. What a joke. Solazyme ripped Roquette for 20million plus two years of financing the JV and further, fuding construction of special purpose facility. That doesn't come cheap.
Went through this #$%$ with pokerpro last June.
I specifcally stated how Solazyme violated the contract: " Solazyme violated the joint venture agreement by failing to follow the steps required to move to Phase III construction."
If you can't figure it out from there . . . snooze and you looze.
Wrong, I have read the contract . . . all of it.
There used to be a saying, "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing."
Now if only Wolfson had read, and understood the whole thing.