Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

International Bio Recovery Corporation V.IBR



TSXV:IBR - Post by User

Comment by Flexy6on Jul 26, 2001 4:39pm
370 Views
Post# 4030656

Re-Re-Fertilizer

Re-Re-FertilizerRe-Customer base: I consider the customer base for the IBR products to be virtually unlimited. Customers of fertilizer products are interested in two things: 1. Does the product in any way pose a threat to their crop? 2. Does the product increase their yield and quality and at what cost? The answer to # 1 is an unqualified no. Unlike chemical fertilizers, which, if improperly packaged or applied can burn out plants, the IBR product presents no such threat. In respect to #2, the massive North-American tests have established that no chemical fertilizer can compete with the IBR product in respect to yield, quality, or cost. In addition, within the manure field they are the only company in existence that can add significant value to a by-product that presently represents a significant burden to many industries. For example, feed lots, chicken operations, and hog producers are under a literal siege of lawsuits in federal courts with respect to the manner in which they dispose of the manure created in their operation. My telephone surveys reflect a total lack of knowledge on the part of these operators to the progress made by IBR to date. The fact is that IBR has a total and profitable solution to their most precarious position. I have referred in the past to the October/November period. At this time, results of the field tests will be recorded in agricultural journals throughout the world. I view IBR management as having two choices. One is to attempt to deal with the penny-ante British Columbia stock crowd in respect to raising expansion capital. I have no doubt that option is not even near the table, much less on it. The other option is the route Ballard Fuel Cell took in approaching the major automobile manufacturers. This proved to be the course, which brought them to the attention of the contemporary traditional investment community. I believe that IBR will in one way or another formulate a relationship in the period mentioned, with one or more of the major agro entities operating in North America. An overwhelming mutuality of interests mandates this to occur. As with Ballard Fuel Cell this type of relationship will provide the launching pad into traditional investment circles. This development should be rewarding for both the company and its shareholders.
Bullboard Posts