Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
An EXCELLENT point by you, As I See It.
I agree with you Sano in that there was no timeline, and not a lot of detail. But then they are not required, nor are they likely allowed to publicly release specifics due to the non-disclosures in place. I hate to go back to that, but that's the fact. I think they want to communicate with their shareholders as much as possible, but their hands are tied to some extent. They did give some details that were important. That the AOT has been completed on time and on budget. That tells me that, logically, since TransCanada is solely responsible for the transport of the AOT to the installment site, that the delay is likely coming from TransCanada. If the AOT is done, there's really nothing else to hold them up. Just logistics. If that's the case then TransCanada is the only one in this situation that really matters. If TransCanada is happy, I'm happy.
MF-- Totally agree!
The Wall St. Journal? Thanks for the link!
Just checked, this is just a news feed, but yes, indeed the news coverage is expanding which is a great thing.
Really? I hope your prediction is true, then I'll get the chance I've been waiting for to pick up cheap shares :)
Excellent. Short, to the point, and very bullish. Much more bullish tone than I expected. Maybe even as much or more so than the shareholder meeting. I did not expect them to mention the Sarbanes-Oxley or the up-listing. Excellent. I really like Mr. Bigger's style. He gets to the point. I am very very happy with this update. Really addressing the amazing opportunities that are right in front of STWA, how they are attacking them, and when.
There is nothing wrong with this pr. It is not an update as you say. Out of courtesy, the company simply is communicating, and letting investors know that a shareholder update will be arriving on Monday. Also, I'm not sure what "golden egg" you are referring to, if you are referring to the AOT being delivered, myself personally I have no doubt it will be delivered if it has not already. TransCanada are the ones transporting the AOT to it's installment location, and they are the ones STWA should be concerned with.
Remember, the company does not "have" to give us any information on timelines or any supplemental information at all if there is no material event or information. The fact they are doing so simply shows their loyalty to their investor base. I will say this, a conference call would be wonderful, and I'm sure at some point they company will do that. But for now we should be happy that they make the effort to release a shareholder update at all, because they don't have to.
I think everything said has a meaning. They are strategically planning every move, and I don't believe anything is random. If you listen and read between the lines a little, this screams of the demand for the Upstream AOT.
"Mr. Bigger will discuss the acute challenges being experienced by oil producers and transporters in the upstream, gathering and midstream sectors domestically and globally as a result of the unprecedented surge in upstream crude production and the significant capital expenditures being committed by the industry to mitigate the situation.
By "discussing" these acute challenges, imo Mr. Bigger is talking about the need being expressed by the oil producers and transporters for the AOT. This tells me that there has been a big discussion with several if not all ("domestically & globally") of the oil companies they are talking to about the need to relieve bottle necking near the well heads. It's clear to me from this that the producers and transporters are spending a great deal of money in an attempt to alleviate the problems of accumulated oil at the well head location. Mr. Bigger and the company, together with the oil companies have likely identified how greatly Applied Oil Technology can be of use here. In fact to extrapolate, it's possible that that the Upstream AOT was born out of these discussions. Also mentioned is the "gathering" sections of where the oil is collected. I wonder if there are opportunities there as well.
To me, I see that Mr. Bigger is a former Marine, and from meeting him and talking to him I think he has a strategic plan laid out 100 steps ahead of what any of us are thinking. And I don't think anything he says is random, especially in a pr or shareholder update. I'm looking forward to the update, and to see how that differs from what I learned at the shareholder meeting.
Your intent is obviously to raise doubts in the minds of shareholders, but let me tell you pal, zero shareholders are far too knowledgeable about the company to fall for your petty little antics. I 2nd Whacky's opinion, this isn't even worth a response.
Stocks go up and down. If the reason you bought hasn't changed then you shouldn't change. It's called taking on risk for reward, and in my opinion the risk is well worth the reward in the case of STWA. Relax, and if you can take advantage of this dip I myself would do so, and am doing so, because I think these prices are a steal.
Oooohhhhh yessss, I remember that one. Oh that was a GOOD one, I quite enjoyed that post. Thank you sano for digging that up, I really enjoyed reading that again...
oh, and ps, the whole point of Dickland's first post was that T3, by posting the average price everyday, is not adding anything to the discussion of the company either. Why don't you comment on that.
STWA investors around the world agree with Mr. Dickland Macgruder's senitment, as do I. Known to many as an "International Man of Mystery," and "The Most Interesting Man in the World." Also, who's name I can't help but want to pronounce in a Scottish accent....Thank you Dickland Macgruder!
No, I don't believe so. They couldn't go public with TransCanada I believe because TransCanada asked them not to. I have no idea why, it could easily be because they didn't want to draw attention from the competition, or they thought it simply was too early. However, after the pilot program, and after there are more negotiations when things move along I think TransCanada will allow STWA to name TransCanada publicly.
More importantly, and possibly sooner than that, when they get another contract, as long as there are no NDA restrictions I think STWA will go public with a press release, and possibly news agencies to name the company they are doing business with. It just depends on the particular agreement. But I have a sense they will go public with the oil or pipeline company if they can.
I asked that question at the shareholder meeting (about TransCanada's intentions). My understanding was that it was being considered for the whole Keystone Pipeline (where the first unit's pilot program will be initiated). TransCanada will run the pilot at this first location and then there will be some shuffling around and they will place the unit(s) at key points on the pipeline where TransCanada has already specifically done work to target & identify where the AOT will benefit the pipeline most. To answer your question, this is the basis for which the AOT is being evaluated. Your a long time holder, I'm surprised you were not at the meeting. It's too bad, because it was so very informative.
To continue, my impression from Mr. Bigger was for TransCanada's other pipeline's as well, namely because TransCanada suggested and/or asked (back when the China test was being done) STWA why they were doing business in China when TransCanada said "we have an enormous presence there", and doing business in China through a major player like TransCanada would offer many more benefits and synergies including protection and security (I'm paraphrasing most of this). That was when STWA decided to drop China, after their discussions with TransCanada. This, and other logistical reasons we're cited. There is a whole list of other synergies I could think of that would benefit STWA by being in a country like China by partnering with a major player like TransCanada as well; transportation costs, legal costs, installations and maintenance etc...they same way they are going about things now with this first unit. And the list goes on.
I think we should start to think about STWA like they are a part of TransCanada. While they indeed are not (yet anyway ;), and will be signing contracts with other big oil companies (like Bigger mentioned that he couldn't talk about at the meeting), if you were at the shareholder's meeting you heard how integrated STWA is with TransCanada, and how TransCanada obviously have developed the AOT for years right along STWA's side guiding them. It would not surprise me to learn now that this bond began when the PRCI got involved at the lab tests well before the Department of Energy tests. From the beginning of the AOT really. I believe that TransCanada is integral within every decision that STWA makes. I see a great partnership and/or potential merger or acquisition forming here. But that's my speculation. If this program goes as planned, I would not be surprised at some point to see a bid for STWA by TransCanada. Then, if I may speculate, what might happen if the other major oil companies want it as much or more than TransCanada.
As far as your PPS estimate that's a guess and anyone's is as good as mine. The market will determine it. STWA has so many options right now as to what they can do. And if you think about all of the possibilities that could occur in the very near future including optimism about their first real revenue, additional contracts, additional leases, sales, up-listing, TransCanada, international, mergers or acquisitions, etc...you will see there is only one direction the pps will ultimately end up going. Think about how you would feel if some or many of these things occurred close together and you missed altogether after holding for so long. Patients is a virtue. If you believe in a company, and the fundamental reason why you own it, that reason doesn't change just because the stock price goes down.
Extremely informative As I See It. Thank you for the much needed education for many that aren't aware of the complex details of the pipeline industry. I understand and knew most of this. I think the one thing I am unclear on the difference between "frictional pressure drop" and viscosity reduction.
And I would just like to comment on alkalinesolution1's post.
Think of it this way. Instead of focusing on how much the AOT will change the oil industry in it's entirety, I focus on what the potential earnings can (and I believe will) be based on the number of AOT's leased or purchased based on the potential demand. If you stop and think about how much the AOT leases or sells for, you realize that the addressable market for the AOT will provide more sales and income than we would need to for a very healthy business, and an extremely healthy share price.
Nice try Drugie, but exactly as Sano just said, it has no bearing.
Ohh, I don't know. I don't think all of these disasters caused by rail transport can be good for business. Nor bad for pipeline initiatives.
Sorry, I don't see an escape clause as a clear determinant or an accurate estimate of what exactly will happen. Therefore, I see your 3 month projection as a skewed one. I guess none of us will know until the 90 days are up.
My projection is based in reality as much as your's is. Indeed I have never costed anything like this, however as I clearly pointed out in my last post it is impossible for you to know what this is costing STWA, or what type of agreements the company has in place with the 19 companies that are building the AOT. This is especially true now that we know that TransCanada has invested millions of dollars and devoted 27 of their own engineers into this AOT that will go on the Keystone Pipeline. If we know this, logic would dictate that they must have been involved in the development of the AOT, and it's build process for a very long time. Maybe from the beginning. How do you know that TransCanada didn't pay for all of the build costs you are talking about entirely? For this first one they may have paid for the whole thing just to do this pilot program. All I'm pointing out is that your argument is completely flawed, because it's impossible for you to know the details. Especially with a major oil company involved in the process. I think that TransCanada would have had a say in (including the cost & manufacture) the build of something that's going on their pipeline that cost a small fortune if done improperly, and a matter of U.S. energy security with it's strict regulations. Not to mention that it will cost TransCanada something like a million dollars just to shut the pipeline down for the time it takes to install the AOT.
Especially with all of the resources TransCanada must have, how could we not think that TransCanada wouldn't just suggest using their facilities to build the AOT? After all, they are a pipeline COMPANY are they not? That builds PIPELINES like the famed Keystone XL? That's what they DO. STWA made it quite clear at their recent shareholder meeting that the company & TransCanada are "deeply integrated," and have been throughout the entire development of this AOT. If TransCanada was so deeply integrated and involved in this AOT, how indeed could we just assume that TransCanada was not involved in the build cost of this AOT? In my opinion, to think anything less would be ignoring a huge component of why and how STWA is building this AOT in the first place, and therefor quite ignorant. Or how about the fact that Mr. Don Dickson is the CEO of Advanced Pipeline Services who's core business is in the construction of new pipelines and facilities? Do you think that HE might have any suggestions about how to save money building the AOT?
You may or may not have an accurate idea of what it costs to build the AOT, I don't know. What I do know is that you have absolutely no specific information of what it costs STWA to build this AOT with TransCanada and many others at their side. Still think my cost projection is not based in reality? Or that my estimates are hail mary? Typical contract shops may as you say charge hefty premiums to do low volume custom work, but you don't know who's paying the bill. Or who their partners are. Or who even really owns the shop. All of this or none of this may be the case, but my point is that for you to make a blanket generic statement like you did about "No way does this ("this" being $60,000 for 3 months, or $180,000) cover the cost to engineer and manufacture this first run of 4 AOT units" is completely without merit, and flawed. Because you don't know any specifics pertaining to STWA's contracts or agreements with the many companies building the AOT; or really anything about STWA's integrated relationship with TransCanada and how that is likely affecting their build cost.
I thought I had read most of the articles out there and missed this one. I for one enjoyed reading the article and hearing Dr. Tao speak about his Applied Oil Technology in his own words, all be it brief. Thank you Armour for sharing the article.
First of all you are wrong about the lease. It's a 6 month lease at $60,000 per month, not a 3 month lease like you just said. You seem to get these little things wrong when it bodes in favor of your argument. Here is a quote from the lease, just make sure we are clear.
"The initial term (the “Initial Term”) of the Agreement is six (6) months, commencing on the Commencement Date. On sixty (60) days’ written notice prior to the expiration of the Initial Term, TransCanada has an option to extend the Lease for an additional eighty-four (84) months (the “Extended Term”). The Agreement further provides that TransCanada, during the Initial Term and Extended Term, if any, shall have an option to purchase the Equipment for a fixed price during the Initial Term of $4,300,000, and a price during the Extended Term of the greater of $4,300,000 or fair market value."
Now to your next statement, you said "Zero had to fabricate 4 devices in a contract shop likely at hourly rates that would be 300-500% higher than a production run. They are getting 60K a Month with a min of 3 month commitment. No way does this cover the cost to engineer and manufacture this first run of 4 AOT units."
So you actually think $60,000 per month, or $360,000 for the six month lease is NOT enough to cover the cost to make the four pack (1 AOT)?? Are you kidding me? So Sano, how much exactly does it cost to make one four pack? In order to know that, you would need to know all of the costs associated with building the unit(s), please tell me, how you would come about that information when no one except the company knows exactly how much it costs to build the four pack?
How in the world would you know:
1) what the labor costs were
2) that they did it on a contract basis in a contracted shop, and what exactly the contract rate was
3) that the contract rate was 300-500% higher than it would be on a "normal production run"
4) what the engineering and manufacture cost them. Sorry. No way.
Sorry, there's no way you could know what the build cost was, that's highly sensitive information. So there is no way you would know if it is or isn't more than $360,000, (or even $60,000 for that matter). I've talked to many people, and all of them put the cost at a fraction that. And to boot that's not even considering if they continue the lease! Tell me, how much could STWA make from a $60,000 lease if the lease never ends?? That one AOT could produce revenue for years or even decades to come. One year brings in $720,000, x 10 = $7,200,000. Go ahead. Not only are you wrong about the production cost, you are VERY wrong about even this one lease covering the production costs.
Listen, if you can't do math I can't help you. $60,000 per month for ONE AOT alone. If the pilot program goes well, which I know it will, I think it's safe to assume TransCanada will want more. Many more. Do the math on that and how long it will take them to become cash flow positive. Yeah, not long. Only 4 AOT's will bring in $2,880,000. Just about break even. And what if TransCanada orders 40? 40 x $60,000/month (which is a low estimate) = $28,800,000. How's that Sano, do they break even then? Now what about the 6 other NDA's? what if ANYTHING happens with those??? Any of these scenario's has you eating cold crow.
All I hear go on about is their overhead, the "80 million". You do know that the majority of that 80 million was accrued before the AOT even came to testing, don't you? You keep blabbering about the 7 paid director's and everyones salary, but do think this is something new? Take a look at any of these technology companies just starting out, years way from earning penny number one, and if you think STWA directors get paid a lot, these companies with all of their perks and exorbitant salaries make STWA look poor. And yes, look around and you will see plenty of companies that have been around for as long as STWA and aren't even a fraction as close as STWA is to generating their first revenue. Also, Mr. Bigger is adding steps to reduce the overhead, and create the fiscal balance they need to ensure success. So actually yes, fundamentally I can make a case here, because I'm listening to the CEO and what he is saying he will do. You can go on and on about the cash burn for 15 years, but that's the past and mistakes made by past management that is long gone a long time ago. To me it has no bearing whatsoever on the exciting things that are happening NOW. STWA has found a way to keep moving forward, and why do you think that is? Do you think that all of the big investors putting in millions of dollars for so many years funding the company are doing this because they don't see what this is? Or how much money they will make? Of course not. They see exactly where this is going. It's taken much longer than anyone thought, but their investment is about to pay off. With the company about to take in their first real revenue, this marks the beginning of a new era.
You then go on to say,
"Primarily for me, I don;t believe in the scientific principal which the entire company is seemingly based on. "
You can think what you like, but the fact that the technology was verified by The Federal Department of Energy, the Chinese government, the PRCI, the fact that the science has been researched and developed by Dr. Tao, a world renowned Physicist at Temple University, and finally the biggest stamp of APPROVAL you could ever ask for; TransCanada devoting 27 of their engineers and millions of dollars & then Leasing the AOT and putting it on their flagship pipeline at 100% of their own expense? To me, that's all the proof I need.
I see. Who would have thought it one day before Christmas Eve...
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Sano you are so wrong on so many levels.
Sano Said: "why would temple magically agree?" Gee, I don't know, why indeed would Temple agree to continue their agreement with STWA? I guess you'll just have to use your imagination. The answer to me is clear. The agreement was never "given up" in the first place. Clearly they have a reason for sticking by STWA's side. And Temple obviously stuck to their agreement as evidenced by the most recent 10Q.
Sano said: "Makes no sense even with the convoluted theories that management presented temple with some sort of volume estimates of the billions of dollars sales they "might" do. I have bridge for sale too." Excuse me Sano, but clearly you don't have the vision that Temple or STWA has, and cannot see what is so blindly right in front of your face. I don't know if the company presented revenue estimates to Temple, but it makes sense if they did. Do the math and it's easy to see how much money STWA can add to an oil company's bottom line. The added profit is staggering.
Then Sano said: "Company now has 7 directors and pays temple a huge ongoing license fee and they haven't sold dollar 1. The enormous overhead and enrichment of insiders apparently continues unabated. The money is burning and any potential real sales is years away."
Right here you don't know what you are talking about and are wrong. If you LISTENED at the shareholder meeting you know sales are not "years away." In fact STWA starts taking in their first AOT revenue in 2 months. And once this thing gets going their so called "enormous overhead" and "enrichment of insiders" will be a drop in the bucket considering the revenues they will produce. With Cecil I will grant you, his was excessive. BUT, now with Cecil gone I don't see this huge disconnect you keep talking about. Also, I take issue with the so called "enrichment or insiders" you keep going on about. Since Cecil's departure I don't see anything different from any other startup tech company getting going. In fact, start ups today make STWA look poor compared to sums these guys in silicon valley are making in non revenue companies. Give me a break. (I'm aware STWA is not a start-up).
This is a pre-revenue company about to start making their FIRST REAL REVENUE AS OF MARCH 2013. $60,000 a month FOR ONE AOT. One! Take a look at how many of these things could go on a pipeline and do the math. Hell, just 4 AOT's leased put's the company at $2,880,000 million per year! And that's not including any sales! If you don't have vision, and can't see the potential (that's turning into a reality before your very eyes) here you are blind and should probably not keep commenting on this company. The people investing in STWA and funding the company see the potential of the AOT to make Billions for the TransCanada's of the world. Where will you be? My guess is completely missing the boat entirely.
Sano lastly said: "Mid January is a drop dead date for delivery of the units to test . This is a critical date. Let's see if they can hit. It."
Don't you worry Sano, they will hit it alright.
Wow, thank you As I See It. Again, the value added by your observations educate and inform us all.
For those of us that can see what is going on, read the 10Q, and especially attended last year's shareholder meeting it's so plainly clear the company's relationship with temple was never in jeopardy. That's why, in my opinion it's so essential to attend the shareholder meetings. If you did attend last year, you would have heard of how Cecil truly cemented the company's relationship with Temple. You would have heard Mr. Steven Nappi of Temple University speak, & you would know that without a doubt Temple is behind STWA more than 100%. In fact they see this as their largest potential licensing revenue source. Ever. When you go to the shareholder's meeting and hear and see these key people talk about the company, the AOT, and what is going on, it arms you against this type of faux hysteria made by the Sano's of the world.
Sano you make me laugh.
"Zero spins don't stop there?" Yes yes, of course we pro's are all just spinning lies. As far as the compensation is concerned, do you think that STWA is the only company with a three year review period? At least they HAVE a review period. And they didn't have to, they did that specifically to please shareholders. "The enrichment continues" yes, like STWA Director's & Management are the only officers of zero revenue public companies that receive decent shares and compensation? They are not. Have you seen some of the other start ups out there? It's insane! (& I'm not saying stwa is a startup). Rest assured with Mr. Bigger at the helm and the large investor's watching under a microscope, I doubt anyone will be getting out of line now in that department.
And as far as the additional shares are concerned, I feel I must remind you of the fact that there is no dilution unless the company does an offering. I was one that APPROVED the increase. Because I know what's coming, and I know the company will have far greater options & opportunities with an arsenal of shares to leverage, than with none to leverage as they have run out. I see the future of AOT sales & leases & other ways to grow. They must prepare for that. And if you can't see that I think you must be blind. THAT is the real story.
Actually No. It was not. You are wrong.
Here is Armour's post. Which was not spinned as "very positive." Yours was the first post to skew the event in any sort of direction, and, of course it was negative. I guess you conveniently "forgot" or were too lazy to look at the previous posts.
#1
"Insider buying today. Form 4 just issued.
http://ir.stockpr.com/stwa/all-sec-filings/content/0001019687-13-004906/form4.html"
your post:
"You do understand that this form 4 is for the exercise of $0.30 warrants into common stock, don't you?
not bad idea for a stock that is trading at about $1.00 level, don't you think?
The continued dilution of common stockholders of ZERO"
An excellent point As I See It. That IS ironic.
As long as we have some knowledgeable people on here like yourself, MentalFloss, JT, Absinth, Perfection & Ease, Footer, truth, Deephole, Savedbyzero and many other's (forgive me if I did not list you), then it's encouraging to know the record will be set straight.
Additionally, you indeed have added a much greater understanding of STWA to many including myself who is a long time investor (about 10 years now), and I thank you for that. Please do continue to share your wealth of knowledge with us all in the future. That is best Christmas gift I could hope for :)
Here's to wishing all of my STWA brothers and sisters the very merriest of Holidays and warm memories this Holiday season. As well as a VERY prosperous 2014 with STWA. Which, based on their recent SHM, I know it will be!
JT- I couldn't agree with you more. An excellent observation by you, again. I too think it is absurd this event is even being discussed.
The ONLY reason I responded to this is because certain posters on here consistently attempt to spin every meaningless event (including the average daily price) into something negative. I simply want someone there to represent the other side. Spinning Blum's 22,000 share exercise as a negative is a complete joke. And if no one says anything juxtaposing their view, less aware individuals might accept it as fact. I completely agree with everything you just said, and thank you for bringing up this point.
Thank you As I See It. Thank you for that helpful and informative post. As always you raise the bar here and contribute true added value. I have been gone for a while so I'm happy to be back & able to tell you how much I am a real fan of your work here. You seem to have an above average grasp of the facts and I thank you for sharing your knowledge and wisdom with the other investor's on here. It's clear you are seriously knowledgeable about STWA and are deeply needed here. I always look forward to your posts, and agree with what you say. Along with many others on here.
I did not know that Blum's warrants paid for today by him initiated as a convertible note under a private placement. I guess that means that he had to exercise, or let them expire worthless. That said I still see it as positive move; just my opinion. If he can not deposit and sell his shares for over a year at the earliest, it shows he has confidence today in the future over one year from now. Especially since he has never sold any shares & I think we should expect no less than the same. As well as it being a statement of what he thought of the company 2 years ago.
As always, thank you for your thoughtful insight and pertinent facts!
I am NOT Kidding
The director chose to buy stock NOW. So why now? Why not next year? If he thought the stock was going much lower than WHY put his hard earned cash to work in this stock, right now? Because clearly he is positive on the outlook of the company. OTC stocks fluctuate greatly as we all know, nobody knows where the price could be in over a year. But I'll tell you he probably has a good idea.
It is a well known saying that "insiders sell their company stock for many reasons, but only buy for ONE reason."
UP 5.3%! Cool!
Yes thank you for the average price, I can see we were up nicely today!
I had better buy more here, otherwise any sort of news could hit any day and I'd miss out on these awesome prices!
Yes. That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. A director only has 2 choices with regards to what to do with their stock options. They can either:
1. Decide to exercise, thereby using their own hard earned cash to buy the stock knowing that those shares will not be able to be sold for over a year. (OTC Officer's stock is highly restricted and takes a long time to deposit). Or;
2. Decide not to buy the stock, and keep their cash for college tuition.
You tell me which choice is a positive statement about that director's outlook for the company. Obviously choice #1. We don't know where the stock will be in a year, but they probably have a good idea. To boot, it is more than common for Management or Director's to have discounted stock options for the company they work for.
Nice try though T3, and thanks for playing.
Yo Terminator 3, You're the only one who could turn insider buying into a negative event, lol. Like this company is the only one in the world in which the board of director's has stock options lower than the market. Gimme a break...
Yes, I actually for once agree with you there. The continued leasing and/or outright purchase of the equipment are what matter. We must presume if they like the test results they will continue to lease the AOT in their possession, and place additional orders to lease or purchase additional units. All of which will show up in the earnings reports.
Really Sox? Do I have to spell it out for you? Will the test results be in the 10Q? By not releasing the test results publicly they are keeping any change TransCanada's potential future profit margins from being known to their competition. That's how they will "protect margins."
Exactly Sox. Thank you for making my point. Obviously all of the general numbers will be reported in their earnings reports. However by not releasing the test results to the public, they will be protecting any change TransCanada's margins from being known by their competition.
Mr. Sano: Answer me this. How many penny stocks are collaborating and integrating themselves with tier one oil companies with the magnitude of TransCanada? And are going onto one of the most, if not THE most prolific pipeline in the United States of America?
Also, is protecting margins a penny stock move? You clearly underestimate the sever importance of the competitive threat and protecting profit margins at all costs in a trillion dollar marketplace like the oil industry. And what that means to a company like TransCanada. For those that don't know, protecting margins is of top priority for most if not all fortune 500 companies.
With regards to Cecil, no one asked about it because we can all read. That was clearly explained in the public filing in the Proxy materials issued by the company. Maybe you should look up the filing.
Joey, RE: A Potential Buy Out by TransCanada
I asked the question directly to Mr. Bigger during the Q&A session. His answer was that is not relevant right now. However, there was a great deal of chatter going around at the shareholder meeting in Santa Barbara & in London about a potential bid for the company in the future, and that it will be coming without a doubt at some point. Maybe sooner than we think. However it would be up to the shareholder's to vote on it. I think the minute TransCanada extends the lease and orders more units or we get a big order from another tier one oil company; potential buyers for the company will come out of the woodwork. Personally, I would vote it down and I hope that others would do the same. Remember, another company would only buy us out at $15 if they knew the company was worth $30 a share in a couple years. Start thinking big because the AOT is huge. The good news is that wouldn't stop the stock price from skyrocketing from an initial take out bid for the company. Then, if we vote it down the stock will still be very high. We keep the company; but with a healthy share price. Win win. When you see what's going on here. When you listen to Bjorn, and Mr. Bigger, you realize what the AOT is, and what STWA has and what they are doing. You understand that without a doubt there will be a bid for the company. It's inevitable, it's just a matter of time. Whether we take it or not is up to us. This is on it's way into the hands of the oil companies, and there is no stopping it. Why would TransCanada have so many engineers and manpower devoted to to this one project? The answer is simple. They WANT this because it will save them and make them a fortune. It's the oil companies that have been pushing for this from the very beginning (which I have been saying from the beginning). This is driven by them. Otherwise, we would never be collaborating and integrating on such a large scale with a tier one oil company like TransCanada in the first place.
MentalFloss, Ryan Zinke right there showing his added value to the board. Looking back, adding him to the board was one of the company's brightest decisions. I knew I liked that guy. Thank you Mr. Bigger! :)
Trey, great observation. I completely agree that was one of Mr. Bigger's most important statements. That they will be going to different Mid-Stream oil & pipeline companies that deal with different types of crude oil. I think that deserves to be emphasized as I think most people missed that. A huge detail that really matters. Great notes!