Geologist
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.
Good idea, or STWA.
I will let Alkaline take the initiative.
Where Delta p is the pressure drop from one end of a pipe section to another, mu is dynamic viscosity, L is length of the pipe, Q is volumetric flow, and r is the radius of the pipe. The total Delta P is the sum of Delta P's for each section; if you lower mu for a section then the Delta P for that section is redcuced, and the total Delta P for the full system is reduced.
Read through my post #6157
Head loss in piping, I list several causes for head loss, the sixth one is 'Length of pipe'.
I believe in the AOT and so does Trans-Canada, otherwise they would not have committed money and their engineers to the installation of the four skids they ordered last summer. We will have to wait for news from them. I guess, some time in March or April. If they do not get the results expected, they will take more time to tweak the system, there is no way to know how long that will take. As soon as the AOT's are operational and give them the results they expect, then, I think they will be signing an agreement for enough AOTs for the entire pipeline. They (Trans-Canada) still need to develop the Upstream AOT which will be very different than the Midstream AOT.
Suppose you have a pipe with a length of 3 miles. The liquid of viscosity V has a flow rate of F thanks to the pump at the beginning of the pipe.
You miraculously change the viscosity of the 1 mile in the middle from V to 0.
You then have a system equivalent to 2 miles at viscosity V, right ?
The pump is the same. So the flow should be higher than F, no ???
Moorea9
Yes, the liquid in a pipe has always the same flow (volume/unit of time) because all liquids are (almost) incompressible and they have integrity (no empty space, no void). SO : if a portion of the liquid "wants" to go faster (in and just after the AOT), it is "pulling" the liquid upstream, and "pushing" the liquid downstream, so that there is never a void in the tube.
We are not sure what Trans-Canada is doing, we can only guess. If it is near the end of an operational pipeline, they are running a test. I assume they will be collecting the oil at the end of, lets say, a 200 mile stretch of trial pipeline with four skid-mounted (4-pack) AOTs, they will be able to measure what the AOTs can do as the oil exits. If they then take that oil and stuff it back into an extension of the same pipeline without AOT, the initial flow rate will eventually drop as the oil viscosity returns to normal and upon measurement at the other end they will measure a reduced flow rate compared to the section of pipeline with the AOT. The benefit of the AOT will be lost.
In other words, the section of pipeline down line from the AOT will become a bottleneck and the reduced flow rate will back track to the section with the AOT. The oil in that section, even though it is less viscous will flow at the same velocity as the oil in the untreated down line section of the pipeline.
You are suggesting it is an all or nothing: either there are AOTs all the way along, or there are none.
I was imagining it like this. Three pipes:
a) ----------------
b) -----======-----
c) ================
The width goes from a to c; C is the widest. B has a portion that is wider (greater diameter).
So, clearly you can push more stuff through C in one hour than you can through A, assuming the pressure and other variables are the same. Right? So why can't you push through more stuff in B than A, given the same variables?
Don't get too exited Mr. Sano. I am a believer. I believe the AOT is going to make a big difference when properly installed on the full length of a pipeline, from start to finish. Trans-Canada is working on that problem.
For example you have the pipe going along ------------ and then in the middle you expand it ------==========--------- (then back to normal). Well, every hour you are going to get more oil through that pipe than if it was just ----------------- all the way through. right?
The volume per unit time is the flow rate. The example given by STWA of 20,000 gpm is a pipeline flow rate. The flow rate is determined by the pipeline size, the pumping stations and now the newcomer; the AOT attached to the pipeline.
Have a look at: A proposed oil pipeline from Alberta to Nebraska
Read the Quick Facts (Keystone XL)
http://keystone-xl.com/about/the-project/
Conversion: 830,000 barrels per day = 24,210 gpm (US gallons per minute)
http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/flow_rate_volume/
I my previous post; I did not say increased volume, I was referring to increased velocity due to reduced viscosity.
Think of a pipeline as having a starting point and an end point. The pipeline is continuous with a pump station every 50 miles and designed to move 20,000 gpm; with AOTs installed. The starting point is where the gathering lines are fed into the Upstream AOT. The oil in the gathering lines is crude and viscous. The Upstream AOT, although capable of receiving the crude oil will be designed to process only the volume of oil that corresponds to the flow volume of the pipeline (20,000 gpm). I image that the Trans- Canada engineers are working on the Upstream AOT and that this AOT is very different than the 4 unit midstream AOT because the inlet is receiving crude oil. It may be a 6 unit AOT. The crude oil input to the system at the gathering lines will create a bottleneck, and that is not a problem, as long as the output from this AOT is 20,000 gpm. Then oil is then on it's way to the next Midstream AOT, and so on, to the storage tank facility.
The AOT concept is a continuous process along the pipeline from start to delivery. An AOT, or even 4 AOTs cannot be installed in the middle of a pipeline, because the reduced oil viscosity would cause the flow velocity of oil to increase, encountering a jamb further down line and creating a suction up line where the oil has not been treated. This is most probably why the 27 engineers at Trans-Canada are developing the Upstream AOT which will be different for every pipeline and require adjustments for all the types of crude oil.
In my previous post I talked about conservation of mass. Basically what I was saying: the volume of oil that enters the pipeline at the upstream is the same as the volume that exits on the downstream end. The AOT allows the oil to travel faster from start to finish. Along the way there are minor fluctuation in the viscosity causing minor changes in the velocity. I am only speculating that these variations are dealt with at the AOTs by using minutes difference in the size of the inlet and outlet pipes.
With reference to alkalinesolution1 Post #6047, 01/30/14
------------------------------------------------------------------
AOT Technical Question:
“A” equals the VOLUME of oil in the pipeline upstream of the AOT.
“B” equals the VOLUME of oil in the pipeline downstream of the AOT.
Even though the flow rate is increased by the AOT, how is the VOLUME of oil “B” increased by the AOT if the volume of oil “A” coming into the equipment is constant?
------------------------------------------------------------------
The answer to this question : The flow rate through A is equal to the flow rate through B
This is simply the principle of conservation of mass. Because no fluid can leave through the walls and there are no “sources” or “sinks” wherein the fluid can be created or destroyed, the mass crossing section A and then section B of the tube per unit time must be the same.
We know that the oil entering the AOT is more viscous. We also know that when you reduce the diameter of a pipe, the velocity of a liquid increases. So it is logical that the incoming oil, moving at a slower velocity, will enter the AOT through a slightly larger pipe and exit through a slightly narrower pipe, maintaining the flow rate while experiencing reduced viscosity and increased velocity. I think this also explains why the AOT midstream is set up in four pack (5,000 X 4 gpm) each of the four outlets are sized to carry 5,000 gpm back to the main pipeline, while maintaining the constant flow rate. The key word here is 'sized'. The oil on arrival at the next pump station has increased in viscosity and slowed down in velocity, so it is gradually fed into a larger pipe that will maintain the flow rate (volume) while adjusting to a slower velocity.
I examined the AOT midstream Four Pack photos, I am not imaging things here, I can detect a slightly larger pipe size on inlet compared to the outlet pipe size.
This article dates back to 2011, but is a very good read and helps to understand what Organovo has been trying to do.
Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine : History, Progress and Challenges : http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-061010-114257
Just curious 8732, is that a college number from 1971.
If so it is very close to mine.
Glad to see you have joined us, you got in as ZERO takes one of it's dips. Lets hope that this is the bottom.
Shareholder meeting coming soon, so I think your timing is just right.
Myrka
Nicote2012, with regards to SoxFan and his many negative posts; save you energy. You will not be able to reason with him because he believes that the PPS rise has to do a lot of hot air.
Added another 200K this morning.
The very first SFOR bought in Feb 2011 for $0.06
ZERO-TO-100 here are some posts on up listing from Raging Bull.
They date back to the days following the SH meeting in Sept 2012.
This info may help you define what we have and need to up list.
By: bpeterson098 (Ragging Bull)
17 Oct 2012
I want to do a piece on up listing.
We all know that that we only need to meet 2 more of the "financial and liquidity" requirements. That's PPS and shareholders equity. And quite possibly we may have met the latter.
But as we are watching those two carefully, especially share price, we are anticipating that once we hit that $2 mark, it's go time. Well... not so fast gang.
Actually there is another requirement that needs to be met, and it will give us a better sense of timing and understanding when the up list is about to occur. This is known as the "Corporate Governance Requirements."
Granted, these requirements are easy to meet, and we have most of them met, except for a few key ones. But this will allow us to actually see almost exactly when we are filing for NASDAQ. Prior to filing there will be a few very specific 8-K reports. If you watch for these you will know that it's go time, but until then we will not file (even if we hit $2 and stay there) because we don't qualify.
We have to have a majority of independent directors. Currently we don't have that. So watching for changes in the board of directors will be a big cue to us that the final pieces are being put in place.
Secondly the audit committee can only be make up of independent directors. And there has to be a minimum of 3 members. Currently Cecil (non-independent) is the chairperson and we have only 2 members.
These changes are to make easy and can happen quickly. But until an 8-K report is filed showing that we added new independent directors to the board, we will not be up listing. So keep and eye out for that.
By: CrazyOne /JT ( Ragging Bull)
10 Oct 2012
when “Gec” posted that a company rebounding from a professional hit piece are almost unheard of. We could have easily been trading sub-pennies right now if ZERO wasn't so rock solid.
I could feel the disappointment in Gec's post and I knew exactly what he was saying because the chances of ZERO coming back at all, or to the $1 level were very slim. That was then, and this is now. I think we are right back on track.
You have to understand how important the $2 is/was. We probably have reached the shareholder equity minimum, so once we were trading at $2 above the bid, for 5 days we can apply for up listing which is a very, very, very rare occurrence.
Normally when a stock is up listed it produces triple digit returns in a very short period of time (Days) and that's what Gec was talking about partially. The reason for this rise in PPS is because many institutional investors are specifically prohibited from investing in low priced, OTC stocks. In addition to the limitations of institutional investors, some retail investors are unable to buy the stocks due to the limitations of their brokerage company, or just out of plain fear of OTC/Pinks.
Once the up list happens and we reach $5, the institutional money flows in from investors like Bill Ackman and Warren Buffett both of whom are known for recently investing in Bakken, driving both price and volume to incredible levels that I think will be well past $50. For example 2 years ago Sinocoke hit $58 in a few weeks after an up list.
By: 02infinity ( Ragging Bull)
22 Sep 2012
Nasdaq application/ reading between the lines.
Andrew Haag says that he has the Nasdaq application filled out and needs to go over it with Cecil. He turns and looks at Cecil with a smile. Cecil nods.
Then he goes on to list the criteria for qualifying for listing on the Nasdaq:
PPS= $2-$3 ( we do not currently meet)
Net Income= $4million (we do not currently meet)
Stockholder equity value= I couldn't hear the number he threw out, but he went on to say...(we do not currently meet)
And then he went on to explain how unexercised warrants are debt on the balance sheet and hold the value down until such time as the warrants are exercised. He clearly gave Cecil's exercising (not as the Santa Barbara Athletic Club) of his warrant this week as a help to us meeting this qualifier. And then, not so subtly, hinted that others should do the same to help the company meet this requirement.
This team is very, very, very bright and clearly are on a path to success. They have a lot on their plates and they would not be looking at an application submission for Nasdaq unless they were confident that a deal was imminent. How else are we to meet the income requirement? And of course meeting the income requirement will naturally lead to the stock price rocketing past $2.
Additionally, doing what I do for a living, I pay very very close attention to language, and non-verbal communication. And with language, I did count that three times they mentioned an unnamed oil company was flying in soon to meet with STWA at our house in Santa Barbara. And that this is a company they have been in discussion with for some time.
By: boo4321 ( Ragging Bull)
22 Sep 2012
Oh! Just thought of another biggie- When they were talking about the NASDAQ thing (and everyone, *please* exercise your options asap, wish i had some or could still attain some) someone asked if they would ever consider a reverse split to up the share price.
Maybe you had to be there, but the absolute and instantaneous "No." combined with Cecil's body language and smirk spoke volumes about the confidence all of the team members were exuding. The room erupted in applause.
It's a long detailed process, but i don't think anyone in that room doubts it will happen.
By: flubug ( Ragging Bull)
21 Sep 2012
I was also at the shareholders meeting today and wanted to add my two cents in the for what its worth column.
First let me say that I was very impressed by the management team Cecil has put together to help him lead STWA. Each guy is a proven professional in their individual fields of endeavour. Their expertise and experience will prove invaluable in putting this ship on a proper course to financial success.
Another thing that came up early in the discussion and it was Cecil that began the conversation was regarding the up-listing of the STWA stock from the pink sheets to the NASDAQ exchange. It was immediately apparent that this is a very high priority for the management team. Cecil mentioned that they have received the application they need to fill out and submit but he also said that STWA doesn't quite meet some of the performance criterion required to earn a NASDAQ listing.
As has been mentioned before the stock price has to reach some minimum value of I think between $2-3.00 per share for listing. Cecil then went on to talk about another criterion required by NASDAQ and that is shareholder equity. He said that we were close in this department but not quite there yet. He went on to say that the stock option he just recently exercised for .25 Cents a share greatly improved the shareholder equity profile and got us closer the level required for a NASDQ listing.
We may wonder and speculate as to his motives for exercising these options now as opposed to a year from now but maybe the reason may have been as simple as him making a personal financial decision to try and help us all by getting SWTA on NASDAQ as soon as possible.
I'm just saying.
I managed to get 157K of the 605K you mentioned on Friday.
I had an order in for 200K at .003 all week.
SFOR dipped to .003 at 3:48 PM for a minute.
Myrka
It is also Lagacy Private Trust largest investment
New increased positions vs old positions
http://www.j3sg.com/Reports/Stock-Insider/generate-Institution.php?tickerLookUp=ZERO&pageNumber=1&descending=1&sortBy=value
KM will opt for rail versus a pipeline.
Can you imagine crude oil moving across the US in 1000 rail tanker cars? Some are implying that it is safer than a pipeline.
Just last week: Huge explosion as US freight train derails.
A freight train ploughed into a garbage truck and derailed near the US city of Baltimore, triggering a fire and a massive explosion that injured a driver and was reportedly felt for miles.
The explosion rattled homes at least a half-mile away. Fortunately there were no cars carrying oil.
Thanks Zizek for your posts.
In previous posts you said:
IF ONLY the change to the oil were permanent! That would mean the oil could be treated once and sent on its way. But because Brownian motion is a thing, particles have a tendency to move randomly. This means aggregations of iron, paraffin, asphalt, or other high viscosity particles will break back apart over time. Usually a number of hours. Which is why they have to have AOT units installed ~50 miles.
Moore's law gives us a useful corollary. Granted, this was developed to make sense of the rate of computer development, but other fields are found to follow this curve as well. For Moore, from 2005-2013 the efficiency of the technology should have doubled 5 times. Even if we spot the "2 miles in 2005" Moore's law would project the tech going 64+ miles in 2013.
Now this is just speculation… could the future AOT sit piggyback on an existing pipeline powered by solar photovoltaic cells between pumping stations.
ZERO-TO-100, my account is cash, are my shares automatically protected from borrowing. I asked the broker to place an order to sell at $20, but they say the amount is too large, they would consider $2.
Ryan Zinke article in the Portland Tribune
Some interesting background about one of our Directors.
http://portlandtribune.com/pt/12-sports/152045-opposites-meet-in-the-middle
Zizek, I am impressed, you do know your science. I love reading your posts, they are so informative. Mr. Sano and his sidekick have a simple recipe for their messages; basically throw words together, make sure there is a negative message, avoid anything positive add a few dollar figures, make sure it sounds very technical and post. To take them on you have to know what you are talking about because they will use your answer to come back at you. I venture to say that you do know more than most of us on this board. It is nice to have you among us.
Myrka
Today I decided to take SANO off my ignore list. I figured by now he has seen the light and will tell his family to invest in ZERO. But I see that he is still at it.
Nicote, I do not know whether you felt the earthquake this morning in Montreal. It shook my house in Ottawa and it happened as I was viewing the latest news and STWA morning high of $1.09. The earth was shaking , combined with a very strange felling that ZERO is taking off.
I object to the incessant negative posts directed towards a company that, we as investors, have chosen not because of what people say on IHUB or RB. When you decide you want to buy a car, you do your research and you spend your money. If a neighbour accosts you with criticism about your choice, you will not return the car, but you will ignore and try to avoid that neighbour. Funny thing about my neighbour, who does not like my Prius, he is always around asking for help and giving his advice that I do not want.
It is OK for us on IHUB to be critical about our choice and kick around a few inconsistencies about the company we invested in. We do not gather hear on IHUB to read posts from people who obviously do not want us to own this stock. They have their reasons.
It is too bad, because I used to like reading the posts, especially JT and his optimism. Now I will have to put IHUB on ignore and thus free up time for a worthwhile occupation. I will check in now and then to see if things have returned to normal.
I suggest all regulars do the same, they will eventually go away.
Myrka
Shorters beware
The Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI) is a research consortium comprised of the world's leading energy pipeline companies and vendors, service providers, equipment manufacturers and support organizations to the pipeline industry. PRCI is a unique forum within the worldwide energy pipeline industry, delivering value to its members and the industry through the development and deployment of new solutions to the design, construction, integrity, operational, maintenance and regulatory challenges that face the energy pipeline industry.
Its members include 33 energy pipelines around the world that transport natural gas, crude oil and refined products.
Daily News] STWA, Inc, an innovative company creating technology focused on energy efficiency of large-scale energy transport and improved fuel economy for diesel fleets, has announced it is being contracted by the Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI) to test its Applied Oil Technology (AOT) system for reducing the viscosity of crude oil.
http://www.newtechmagazine.com/index.php/daily-news/archived-news/8845-stwa-tests-aot-technology-with-pipeline-research-council-international
I find the latest exchange between JT and Mr Sano very interesting.
Thanks icantstop, I agree, you saved me the trouble of posting that message. Most members of this Board have been STWA shareholders for many years; we have weathered through the many cycles of up and down. We have invested in the AOT solution and are patiently waiting for results.
Salut Nicote
Gatineau/Ottawa, pas loin. Je crois que 2013 va être une bonne année pour STWA
Back in July 2012, before our shareholders meeting in September, the PHMSA (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) imposed a pressure reducing restriction on the Enbridge pipeline in connection with the failure of Line 14 that occurred on July 27,2012, near Grand Marsh, Wisconsin. The imposed 20% reduction was a corrective measure until their pipeline met more stringent guidelines. The involvement of PHMSA with pipeline operators has to be one of the strongest incentives to consider the AOT as a corrective solution to higher pressure (demand) on existing and proposed pipelines.
See the following PDF, page 5, point 2
http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/Files/Pipeline/Corrective_Action_Order_073012.pdf
Just this week (6 April, 2013) I read in the Quebec La Presse Montreal : “Dans une ordonnance envoyée a Exxon après la rupture du pipeline Pegasus en Arkansas la PHMSA ordonne a Exxon de baisser de 20% la pression dans ce pipeline s’il est remis en service”
When we talk about companies interested in acquiring STWA we need to consider TransCanada Corp (TRP.TO) at $47.92 and Enbridge (ENB.TO) at $45.30. Both companies reached $50 recently; I imagine JT has been very busy with DD on all possible interested companies that it is easy to mix-up pps quotes.
That is why we have been waiting for the last six month without any real news. No company will take the leap of faith involving such a large investment in AOT. But a company may be interested in acquiring the patents.
If you are thinking of two AOT on a pipeline as a trial, it will not work. You cannot lower the viscosity of oil between a few pumping stations and ignore the other pumping stations. You would create a plug of denser oil that would neutralize the effect of the two upstream AOT.
Myrka
Belinda4 I have seen your alius before, probably on the ZERO board.
Back in 2010 I searched through the multitude of penny stocks and selected two stocks that I have been watching and bought into since: SFOR & ZERO
Myrka
67.5K
Bought first K in 2010, added shares gradually since.
I have never sold shares. I believe the AOT will deliver in time.
Myrka