Plastics to Oil - Pyrolysis and Secret Catalysts and Alterna | Stock Discussion Forums

web analytics

Advertise on SI

web analytics

Gold/Mining/Energy | Plastics to Oil - Pyrolysis and Secret Catalysts and Alterna

Previous 10 | Next 10

To: MorningLightMountain who wrote (23505)	4/28/2012 4:50:02 PM
From: scion	of 34538

John Stanton, CEO The Challenge of Pyrolysis While the potential need for and value of pyrolysis is clear, a technically solid, environmentally acceptable, and commercially sound approach is yet to be assembled. While many approaches and designs have promising features, no one has yet put the pieces together in viable package. Since 1999, EarthFirst Technologies, Incorporated has explored and developed a number of approaches to distilling used tires into usable oils, gases and solid carbon products. During this time, both bench-scale and commercial sized prototypes provided the Company with valuable incite on the necessary components of a viable commercial process Solid Solutions is currently evaluating technologies and systems which can solve the technical and product quality problems that were noted in previous efforts. If these technologies appear promising, then Solid Solutions intends toconstruct a commercial prototype with which it will develop “proof-of-concept” data and evaluate market viability. web.archive.org Overview Valued investor, Welcome to the EarthFirst Technologies (EFTI) web site. EFTI is a technology development company dedicated to converting waste materials into marketable, commercial products. Over the years, we have researched methods to produce clean, productive fuels from carbon-rich liquid and solid wastes. Within the last few months, EFTI began a "commercialization transformation" to move these advancements out of our development facilities and into the market. Return to the "News Releases" section of this site to find timely updates on our progress with this program. We are committed to improving investor access to information and welcome your suggestions. Sincerely, John Stanton, CEO web.archive.org

Share	Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

From: MorningLightMountain

4/28/2012 5:49:24 PM

of 34538

Post Date: 4/28/2012 5:36:24 PM in reply to a deleted post by capra1
Board: JBI Inc.	Reason: Off-Topic

and the Ontario Government condones that practice???....they have no such things as internships anymore????.....you know, to encourage young people to finish their education, andget real world experience???? strange policies, if I do say so!!! [quote]John went to university( not College) dropped out to take a computer specialist job with the Ontario Government.[/quote] PS: no Engineering dept at this "University"????.... seriously??? brocku.ca

Share	Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read

From: scion	4/28/2012 7:46:51 PM
	of 34538

Can you show me where the 809,953 shares went in a filing? kezzek Saturday, April 28, 2012 6:55:59 PM Re: MadeBucksOnThis post# 180027 Post # of 180035 Uh no. wiki.fool.com Box 6: The type of ownership is here. It is either direct (D) or indirect (I). That's why lines 2 and 4 have different totals, because the 3.1 million are directly owned by Kotick, while the ones from lines 3 and 4 were owned and sold by a particular trust account. Note that even if the person filing the form has no voting control over the shares, he still has to list them. Many times, indirect ownership will be family trusts of some type or another. Sometimes there will be footnotes giving more details on the kind of indirect ownership these represent. In this case, no such luck. investorshub.advfn.com loanranger Saturday, April 28, 2012 7:15:07 PM Re: MadeBucksOnThis post# 180031 Post # of 180035 Those definitions relate to how shares are held, not who owns them. The beneficial ownership forms use directly and indirectly to describe who owns the shares. As you can see from the following definition, shares held by a brokerage on your behalf, which would be described as indirectly held by the definitions that you provided, would be described as being directly held on a beneficial ownership form. sec.gov (ii) Both direct and indirect beneficial ownership of securities shall be reported. Securities beneficially owned directly are those held in the reporting person’s name or in the name of a bank, broker or nominee for the account of the reporting person. In addition, securities held as joint tenants, tenants in common, tenants by the entirety, or as community property are to be reported as held directly. If a person has a pecuniary interest, by reason of any contract, understanding or relationship (including a family relationship or arrangement) in securities held in the name of another person, that person is an indirect beneficial owner of those securities. See Rule 16a-1(a)(2)(ii) for certain indirect beneficial ownerships. Got that? investorshub.advfn.com MadeBucksOnThis Saturday, April 28, 2012 6:51:08 PM Re: loanranger post# 180030 Post # of 180035 you tell me, just going by the definition posted below: DIRECT VS. INDIRECT OWNERSHIP Direct Stock Ownership: Your stock is registered directly on the books of the company as a stockholder of record. (You may hold your shares in certificate form or in book-entry form through the Direct Registration System. See DIRECT REGISTRATION for more details.) You receive stockholder communications directly. Your name appears on the company's stockholder of record list. Indirect Stock Ownership: Your stock is held through a bank or brokerage firm in the broker's name for your benefit. Indirect ownership is generally referred to as "beneficial" or "street-name" ownership. A stock certificate is not registered in your name, and the company does not have a record of you as a stockholder. Financial reports and proxy materials are mailed by the company to brokers for distribution to beneficial stockholders whats that mean to you? JBII MBOT investorshub.advfn.com loanranger Saturday, April 28, 2012 6:48:27 PM Re: MadeBucksOnThis post# 180027 Post # of 180035 "and were issued as indirect, which I believe means personal shares" Is that what that means? investorshub.advfn.com MadeBucksOnThis Saturday, April 28, 2012 6:26:33 PM Re: dreaminbig post# 180019 Post # of 180035 don't really think anyone has to, those shares as far as I can tell were issued for assets that John sold the company, and were issued as indirect, which I believe means personal shares, if that's the case, he can do anything he wants with them... Quote: Can you show me where the 809,953 shares went in a filing? DIRECT VS. INDIRECT OWNERSHIP Direct Stock Ownership: Your stock is registered directly on the books of the company as a stockholder of record. (You may hold your shares in certificate form or in book-entry form through the Direct Registration System. See DIRECT REGISTRATION for more details.) You receive stockholder communications directly. Your name appears on the company's stockholder of record list. Indirect Stock Ownership: Your stock is held through a bank or brokerage firm in the broker's name for your benefit. Indirect ownership is generally referred to as "beneficial" or "street-name" ownership. A stock certificate is not registered in your name, and the company does not have a record of you as a stockholder. Financial reports and proxy materials are mailed by the company to brokers for distribution to beneficial stockholders according to the above definition, you will never see them in a filing again, its a done deal, John got the shares, company got the assets.. just debunking the missing 809,953 non missing shares... I mean honestly, that's like asking where are all the other indirect shares. Examples: Wesson John M 3 - --I 368250.0000 3 0001485143 Common Stock John M. Wesson, as Trustee of the Eleanor R. Wesson Trust - - Wesson John M 3 - --I 451993.0000 2 0001485143 Common Stock John M. Wesson, as Trustee of the Laurence G. Wesson Trust LOL......next! JBII MBOT investorshub.advfn.com dreaminbig Saturday, April 28, 2012 5:25:07 PM Re: MadeBucksOnThis post# 180004 Post # of 180035 Can you show me where the 809,953 shares went in a filing? That was the year he only got paid $1.00 right? investorshub.advfn.com

Share	Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

To: MorningLightMountain who wrote (23500)	4/28/2012 11:10:35 PM
From: 1Coffeehound	of 34538

To: mailman0096 who wrote (467) 1/2/2008 6:14:49 AM From: 1Coffeehound 1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) of 613 How about posting the numbers for those patents Rivera claims to hold for his "process"? It seems silly to tout him as "Biofuels Personality of the Year" if you can't disprove that he is lying about the patents. Message 24175000 To: 1Coffeehound who wrote (468) 1/4/2008 12:02:16 AM From: mailman0096 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 613 The Rivera Process Is Protected Please perform some elementary DD before you open your mouth and make yourself look foolish in public. Mr. Rivera originally applied for a patent, however, that would require revealing the secret Catalyst, a route he chose not to pursue. Therefore, The Rivera Process is currently protected as a "Trade Secret". Before you open your mouth and embarrass yourself further, the Trade Secret route has worked fairly well for Coca Cola, and I believe Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) (Not positive about KFC). As far as CEO John Rivera being voted Biofuel Personality Of The Year, by Biofuels Digest, that is a fact. It is a done deal, the voting is finalized, and Biofuels Digest already ran and printed the results. Look for yourself: biofuelsdigest.com p.s. While you are at the Patent and Trademark Office, look up Vertroleum: United States Patent and Trademark Office. See the TradeMark for yourself on the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS). You have to conduct a new search, all links to the Trademark expire. Simply go to the link below, then click on "Trademark", go to "Search", and then enter the search term, "Vertroleum". tess2.uspto.gov Get used to it. You are going to be seeing VERTROLEUM a lot in 2008 and beyond. siliconinvestor.com To: mailman0096 who wrote (470) 1/5/2008 4:33:09 AM From: 1Coffeehound 2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 613 For anyone wanting to see how the mailman has failed to deliver a plausible excuse for Rivera, go to the company's web site and view the video entitled "Global Validation Presentation". In it, you will find that Rivera quite clearly states that he has been offered "ungodly amounts of money" to sell his PATENTS. <Mr. Rivera originally applied for a patent, however, that would require revealing the secret Catalyst, a route he chose not to pursue. Therefore, The Rivera Process is currently protected as a "Trade Secret".> Please come better prepared next time. This was really too easy. You can wipe the egg off your face now. <Please perform some elementary DD before you open your mouth and make yourself look foolish in public.> siliconinvestor.com

Share	Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

Previous 10 | Next 10

Copyright/IP Policy

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.