Jump to content



Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

In reply to: brunosch on Friday 11/02/05 04:33pm


I fail to see your point. Yes, you seem to be good on the small picture. So why do you post? Given the time you put into it you must think you are driving the price down. I don't think SS has the impact you think. But go for it, I'm a buyer at the right price. (I don't believe Mizuho takes positions with the intention of destroying their investments, but you do. Good luck)


Link to comment
Share on other sites


Palm Beach Post | Lisette Mariner, Florida Medical Association | February 10, 2005


Palm Beach Post (Florida) February 8, 2005 Tuesday FINAL EDITION




While it's encouraging that the number of antibiotic-resistant infections at the Palm Beach County Jail has decreased, it is also important to point out that prison inmates are not the only people at risk from potentially fatal antibiotic-resistant "superbugs" ("New staph infections at jail drop 50 percent," Jan. 29). Anyone with a weak or immature immune system - including children, seniors and cancer, transplant and HIV/AIDS patients - is particularly vulnerable.


The emergence of "superbugs" is part of a global crisis in antibiotic resistance caused by antibiotic overuse in human medicine and animal agriculture. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that 70 percent of the antibiotics and related drugs used in the United States - 25 million pounds of antibiotics a year - are used as feed additives for poultry, swine and beef cattle, not to treat illness but, rather, to promote slightly faster growth and to compensate for unhealthy conditions on factory farms. More than half of these drugs are identical or very similar to antibiotics that are important in human medicine.


That's why the American Medical Association, the Florida Medical Association and the Florida Nurses Association are among the more than 380 groups nationwide that have endorsed the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, legislation that soon will be reintroduced in both houses of Congress. If passed, this bipartisan, common-sense bill would phase out the antiquated practice of using medically important antibiotics as feed additives for agricultural animals.


LISETTE MARINER, director of communications


Florida Medical Association





Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: neo99 on Friday 11/02/05 05:37pm

u]The unconditional approval confirms that the product meets the stated product specification(i.e. label) when produced through their new plant[/u] neo   


Well 1/2 a story always makes good reading. So they are currently putting in 100% of ingredients and getting 15% product to spec and 85% by-product. Now tell me what number on the 20 t plant are they going to license it for 3t or 20t.????


Let me tell you it is not 20 and until they can consistently get 3t it won't even be that. Every batch takes how many days?? How many full cycles can occur before the timetable is shot??


I am told very little is going on at the plant at the minute engineering / process wise. Can anyone else confirm that?? That means they don't know or can't implement required changes yet. After the "engineering review" that was happening before M came along and the "independent review" these combined may not have been conclusive just confirmed existing knowledge to date not solutions!!. Unless there is some activity deadline will get very tight.


Yes M want it to suceed but them being there doesn't change the scale of chemical, poly and physical engineering issues they have bought into.


Let's take the most positive spin possible and say they know all the answers. They have to do one batch to prove to themselves and then a further X to prove for license.


Is this right?





Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (david_j_c @ Friday 11/02/05 07:33pm)

Neo and David,


I think the facts speak for themselves. The covenant requires unconditional APVMA approval by 31 May 05. We have contractual experts (Neo & David JC) exerting that the covenant will be satisfied (ie satisfies MHI) on CMQ obtaining an unconditional APVMA for a plant working at 15% of its rated capacity (assuming that Neo's assertion that CMQ can get such approval is not rubbish!!). Have Neo forgotten his assertion quote:

The 20T plant was never going to be commercial - last rights offer doc & previous prospecti. It isn't until the 50T upgrade that the plant becomes commercial. This plant proves process scale up and ability to attract customers only.
And somehow it is logical to interpret that the covenant in the term agreement is asking for an APVMA approval @15% of the rated capacity!



I fail to see your point. Yes, you seem to be good on the small picture. So why do you post? Given the time you put into it you must think you are driving the price down. I don't think SS has the impact you think. But go for it, I'm a buyer at the right price. (I don't believe Mizuho takes positions with the intention of destroying their investments, but you do. Good luck)


Satisfying the covenant is not a ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’‚¹ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“small pictureÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¾ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢. A failure in the covenant means:

1) MHI is free from its obligations to subscribe to any unexercised options.

2) MHI may elect to receive repayment of the convertible bonds or convert

the bonds.


Even IF MHI did not elect to receive payment for its initial $40M convertible bonds, CMQ will not have sufficient cash to raise the minimum bank balance from $25M to $40M.

Can you see the ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’‚¹ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“big pictureÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¾ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢?


I am amaze at your skill of exerting what you think others are thinking? Only fools thinks that they know what other posters are thinking. For your information:


1) I donÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¾ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢t believe Mizuho takes positions with the intention of destroying their investments. They are here to make money on their investment and the terms of the agreement offered MHI a ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’‚¹ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“damn good amount of protectionÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¾ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ should CMQ fails! Where about in my posts did you find me stating that MHI intended to destroy CMQ?


2) I am not as big a fool as you are to think that anyone is stupid enough to think that he/she can drive CMQ share price up or down by posting on sharescene! I donÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¾ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢t even share your belief that Geoff-what-his-name from the Western Australian is so powerful to be able to destroy CMQ share price with his articles! You are entitled to your fantasy.



I'm a buyer at the right price.
Common David, put your money in and post a copy of the buy contract note on the site! Prove that this is not empty rhetoric.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (david_j_c @ Friday 11/02/05 01:50pm)


For a minute, I though your statement that CMQ will get the APVMA unconditional license was based on facts when in fact:

I mean that's when the Mizuho money runs out. You are right, they will have to make progress to get APVMA unconditional approval. I'm not sure how this works, but I assume that they could get unconditional approval now for 15% capacity. From the engineers' report this is a relatively straightforward but time consuming matter.


And from then on CMQ enthusiast Neo picked it up and ran his posting

Quoting his ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’‚¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å“BUNKER BUSTERÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ÂÂ: The unconditional approval confirms that the product meets the stated product specification(i.e. label) when produced through their new plant
And from then on, it had gained sufficient traction to be treated as if it is a correct fact!


And in respond to my posting on CMQ paid advertising, Neo had cleverly started the imaginary fact

Quote: I know what you are saying, but this is not lying!! The fact is they scheduled this for Oct2002, Oct2003, Mar2004, July2004 ... and so on. Not to mention the "Imminent" ann'sÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚  .

Poor Nodil quickly picked it up:

Quote Let's hope this spares our nitpicking sparing partner, bruno, another night of restless sleep worrying about whether Chemeq was a serial lier (with plenty of exclamation marks) when it repeatedly said the plant was scheduled for commissioning by date 1, date2, date 3, etc.
No. The company was not lying. It was - and is - simply late. When a train runs later than the scheduled time-table, no one accuses the railway authority of lying.
There was complete silence to my statement challenging:
Where in the sentences above or in the article did you read Quote: when it repeatedly said the plant was scheduled for commissioning by date 1, date2, date 3, etc.
simply because this was NEVER said in the paid advertising- it was something imagined by Neo and ran as facts by Nodil!! Do I see a clear pattern emerging from the die-hards justifying the indefensible? One starts off with an assumption and or plain imaginary statement, and another quickly pick it up and run it as a fact. Very clever indeed!



Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: jessica on Friday 11/02/05 10:28pm

Hi jess,

Ok, I think theres a piece of info missing here from a while ago. Appologies for assuming this was known.


It is not the total throughput that is approved, but the individual batch size.

example: Throughput (7.3T/yr) = Batchsize(e.g. 20kg) * Batchtime (e.g. 1 day) * 365(1yr)


Therefore samples of successive batches (and data used to produce them) would be verified(independantly? - not sure) that they meet the product and label specification. This is know as validation. I think from memory there has to be three successive succesfull batches for the plant to be validated.


If they are operating or validating they could not make changes anyway!! So which one would you wany first?


Bruno, Bruno, Bruno,

I am a patient man, but you are wearing a little thin. I am no enthusiast, cheer leader or any other thing you might call me. I am simply correcting your assassination attempts on this board. I am as disappointed with CMQ as the next, but lets keep it real, ok.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (neo99 @ Saturday 12/02/05 02:08am)

Hi Neo


I guess that is my point. They are either happy to produce batches now and accept the 15% result just in order to produce some product and meet contracts or do they keep working on it and try and bring the numbers up to a respectable level for approval?. Those 2 lines cross somewhere at a point on a graph of time vs. product produced. The later option has higher cumulative output past that point but how long will it take to implement the change in process is the key unknown. Time is crucial to CMQ if it is to keep M backing.


Being told previously that 2 batches had been run seems obvious now that was lie as they would have run the third just to gain even a low level validation that they could "upgrade" when a time window permitted. Seems to be a consistency problem in the process that is stopping even a consistent 15% being reached.


Personally I want the approval for the higher volume as that creates cashflow but now the tight deadline are going to make this hard to achieve.


Out of interest does anyone know if the reduced 15% was still taking the full 4 week batch time or was it quicker (I assumed it was the same time otherwise it wouldn't be as big an issue)??


We really are driving blind with all this historical nonsense ( numbers / predictions ) as gradually so many things that have been said by the company are shown to be half truths.

I will accept new numbers when M puts them out but it is not in M best short term interest to do so. The lack of information that is current and verifiable logically or independently will lead to a big correction up or down when is finally released.


Not sure how comprehensive the papers for this next meeting will be but they will indicate M's control over CMQ and attitude to minor shareholders who are just fodder.


I would love to invest in the CMQ technology but am not convinced CMQ will be the final vehicle that will have success with it and pass rewards back to shareholders so I will sit and wait for some risk to dissipate and honest progress announcements to appear.




PS This niggling sword fight between posters going on would be much helped by facts or the time instead spent forcing the company to release some relevant up to date details. Any chance we can leave all the personal stuff and ancient history for PM's and try and dig up some current valid information as the thread is nearly unreadable and tiresome? We are all to blame.

Edited by jessica
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: neo99 on Friday 11/02/05 07:36pm



Thanks, you are correct. Maybe I meant 0.6c/knottamg, that being 10^-9 of a knottatonne. As you know, a knottatonne is a unit of weight of CMQ active principle, which varies from time to time, but in the end is that quantity which will ensure that the share price in 2010 is exactly what knotta wants it to be. But I did use the conventional mg (at 0.06c/mg) in the calculation.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...