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.
Alkaline - re the SHM, apart from the
18 month limit suggested by some, I have no
idea
but my take on that subject is that a virtual
occasion is best ..it's cheap and it's proportionate
to where we are (probably) and why would CEO and management
want to make a big deal about the NDA culture
there is plenty to be optimistic about - starting, it seems to me, with an honest self-diagnosis about what is a reasonable expectation..in such a situation of firsts and uniques etc
the new mini-lab - the funding of it - its proven earning capacity - is good
the history of the XL ...how it was developed ..and how it has united QS with a number of companies ...maybe smaller ones..is also great news
these most obvious and recent fragments offer hope - ie it is clear that no amount of happy updating re global sample-sending and phone calls and letters of intent and advanced talks with a Middle Eastern client etc etc is going to produce a contract
it seems to me the real work is in long term collaborations that gradually get the work on the ground done...building up the contexts for full on disruptions and contracts
it - this pace - is a nightmare for many Longs, no question about
it...but such is the bureaucracy of this massive industry
plus we need to factor in all the market factors and players techniques which
can effect or control a stock
yes, the BOD chose Cecil's salary
and then they chose Greg B's
and - funnily enough - they are the same salary
I wonder why
and then one CEO is criticised for not rejecting that
figure at some point ..or for not reducing it voluntarily
???
face it - some people don't do what you want them to do
and ?
here comes the end of Q1
and thus we approach XL day
and the stakeholders' meeting re the XL prototype
worth $4-5 million revenue for QS and not to mention
its overall programme and the other offshore platforms that litter the Gulf of Mexico
this must be our largest single dollop of income to date
a material event , I assume ?
the CEO did not choose his salary
he was told when appointed what his salary would be
as is
the norm in such circumstances
change the tune for goodness sakes
we don't need an SHM -
it would be a waste of time and money at the moment
with nothing but NDA's to circumvent and lawyers paid
accordingly
and who wants to listen again to the same old bilge
that gets presented here ?
There is no proof, of course
this whole game is about pretending that silence can only
be guilty and that NDA's are merely used for covering up
failure
and that we are in an equivalent scenario to that film
Capricorn One ?
which posits the idea of the moonlanding as an event
created in a film studio
in a word, puerile
yes Jaymark, the tick tock is very much the thing
it has been a frightening % of an earthly existence..
and talking of which..do you think NASA might be interested
in a variation...??
it seems very odd to think that our products ..note the possessive
pronoun !! - could one day be integral to an entirely new and green
global management of resources...
Even Elektra will be out there & one of the icons and a reminder of what
longs were hoping for earlier in the century ..day after day .
nostalgia !!
Inspiration - if true or false, everything always
and only proves something negative in your eyes..
and usually always about the people,
no, the MEN who run the company...
it's all so easy in your eyes, you know better always
and appear to suggest you could do better or know people
who could..
is it not possible that the oil men / executives such as
Mr Bundros or Mr Dickson can offset the utter inadequacies -
as you preach them from here - of Mr Bigger ??
or are they all tarred with the same brush ?
i wonder what it's like to manoeuvre a large company
(and especially one who has been a partner etc over
many years ) into a large contract ..
I am sure - and i have to believe - that if instant and loud
publicity was a likely aid ..it would have happened by now
it's not exactly an original idea, after all !!
where is that quote from Smile ? is it new ?
I don't recognise it ...but it could have slipped
the memory or through the less than forensic studying
of yesteryear
please explain - are you living in a future already
committed to paper in an exclusive time zone ? !
Thanks Snoop for flying the Long flag
Contrary to some opinions, there seems to be only one
permissible way of discussing things
which is to repeat the publicly filed documents
in which the only option has been to accurately
describe the ongoing promotions of long term hopes
there is so little scope for much else to be discussed
and the CEO quite clearly has told us whatever he can
the details re the XL project are exceptional and very
powerfully realise the detailed work being done behind
the scenes..technically and bureaucratically
no-one said the KM or TC details were going to be
publicised ( Inspiration) and if a product is in
the process of being systematised, that sounds like
the details were favourable...and that if condensate
can be mastered by AOT, that bodes well too
no-one - not even the CEO of your dreams (Inspiration)
is going to persuade the big corporations to move at
a different speed - especially when these entities have
already been good partners to a crumb of a company..
it's all repetitious but some of it aligns with
the reality of bureaucracy dealing with a disruptive technology
Inspiration - re the CEO being unqualified
it is a fact of business life ( your background?) that you
have to have personnel with relevant experience
it is and was always blindingly obvious that QS would need
people and expertise from the Oil and Energy sectors
and that is why the Directors have have been chosen
several of whom have decades of relevant experience
the CEO has other experience and expertise and I would
suggest that the financial survival of what was
such a vulnerable company was the priority of those who chose Gregg Bigger
it sounds regressive but I think we should be grateful that
STWA/ QS has survived what was perhaps always going to be
a long haul - given what we know now about the huge weight
of bureaucracy etc
Mr Bigger is surely well supported and advised by the Directors
and they must function as a well balanced team in navigating such
a large and conservative industry ...
maybe we were all naive in expecting financial gains to arrive
either before contracts and via waiting for those contracts as if they are an immediate consequence of successful testing
difficult
Hi Jaymark
trying again
we are all still long and strong and lurking
in the background I think -
it seems we have to go the slow way - via lots of
smaller projects...I think the XL variation might
produce the first bigger revenues..and I have given
up hoping for a big first order from Columbia or MIddle East
etc..i guess they will all want to use the mini-lab method
sooner or later..just to be thorough..
no matter how interested they are, this pace (awful for us)
is all about the bureaucracy's approach to an intrusive technology
which applies to every inch of pipeline and oil
I have no doubt KM still want it..but who or what can dictate the pace of approaching and investing in a whole new era...?
As one engineer friend relayed - it took KM 4 months to schedule a job which involved the changing of one valve..and which actual work took 2 hours..that is quite a ratio !
out of the blue : we knew nothing in advance
about the mini-lab / AOT testing module
that being an excellent development and presumably
not a cheap one and which is already earning revenue
And, like so many factors, it expresses real confidence
in the technology and its future...
it does also suggest that a contract might always have
to follow on from such testing..rather than coming out of
the blue like the mini-lab itself did
but I hope i am wrong
8 years and just as vague and inconclusive
as anything positive, if you are a doubter
the fact is that academics have all sorts of
bitchy stuff going on and have all sorts of reasons
for undermining each other or trying to..
and this technology has been working and improving for
years and
since RMOTC and others got to grips with it
it's a busy world out there and most
professional people have no time or inclination
for the nonsense that is imputed here and only
here..
where is the mini-lab going next ?
when is another relationship going to make
the jump ..?
AISI - yes, by the way, that was the correct
reference for the SCADA link with KMI
BUT I mis-read it and interpreted 'the Company'
as KMI rather than QS
BUT..i don't think due diligence is needed to show
that KMI is involved in the Gulf of Mexico
but the consortium is a novelty...and it is hard
not to see KMI as the 'long-term trusted partner' whose
management initiated & pursued all the research for
XL..
I know that there could be a mass of relationships ongoing
which are not known to us...but with a consortium including
another & unknown & long term partner ??
in that regard, I don't understand the process which includes approval for $4-5 million expenditure being needed..& from a devolved asset management committee...but maybe that is what being in a consortium involves..?..it's a co-operative ??
any views AISI & Longs ??
agreed AISI ....it might not be that
particular project re Scada
but how many long term trusted partners
can there be ? and as part of a consortium ?
the consortium is that partner? surely not
but is it not possible AISI that KM
has multiple infrastructures or centres of
operation...?
From your previous post, entirely accurate I am
sure, it is a fair deduction that QS has both such a dizzying
number of relationships that these include a separate
relationship with a consortium that also does not include
KM..
i don't have the precise quote..but the customer does
have a recent past involving a SCADA system..
who could that be if not KM ??
Let's try again : do you think
after reading or re-reading the relevant
document
that the trusted long term partner responsible for
requesting the XL variation - costed at $4-5 million -
is
or could be
Kinder Morgan ????
regardless of other considerations about infra-structure
or K M processes and possible executive incompetence
BP1 ---Dubs ??
I was trying to clarify the feasibility of the
XL project -the offshore/ marina triple-grid etc -
being a Kinder Morgan project
I re-read the relevant document and there
seemed a number of reasons why KM fitted
most memorably because 'the Company' in this
instance is referred to as having recently integrated
AOT into a Scada system
if KMI is that trusted long term partner involved
in the Gulf of Mexico ...then that would explain
or contribute to the delay or slow pace of things
post condensate..
ie this agonising pace is possibly due to the AOT
being applicable to every inch of KM or any pipeline
etc
which client is the XL offshore /marina ?
and any reason why it could not be Kinder Morgan ?
so - FML - how long should this take ? would you expect
an announcement about condensate etc before the XL project (and whatever else ) was finished ? I suppose they have to be sure of one project before they extend into another..??
The client is described as a 'trusted,long term collaborative
partner in the midstream domestic sector'
and like the COC in Alberta Tar sands etc, this trusted entity
wants this variation, (25,000 barrels per hour, 3 AOT's doing the
work of 20 normal AOT's, and with an installation and specifications described in very considerable detail)
And wants it to serve as a prototype re all the other similar pipelines and offshore to land included...
so.. apart from Trans C and KMI ..could there be another trusted partner..? or is it not more likely that both first partners have progressed to extending successful prototypes to their whole network..? what is the failure rate there ?
Furthermore, the XL is related to a client/ the company having already integrated AOT into a Scada system...
Now that it looks as if KMI has tested two different variants consecutively, in the future, let's hope,these tests - whether by KMI or whoever - can be done at the same time ...
i do not understand the payment process - re the $4-5 million -
why - especially if it is KMI - does that cost have to be approved by a stakeholders/ asset assessment committee etc etc ??
good news of the Alberta sands
that successful testing aligned two 8ks
into a successful and punctual project
the agreement of Nov 28 was completed last week and that means
it is COC who is now ready to tackle Alberta's squillions,
having paid QS the $50,000 and with a view to a full AOT
installation
look at the relevant documents and tell anyone (your shrink
included) why that is not progress
our company is a prawn making good steps but
always and by necessity at the pace of the...bigger
fish..whales ? leviathan ?
next of the 3 for the first Q 2017 : the XL and its $4-5 million revenue ?
or the MIddle East ?
so.. now the tar sands can be added to condensate..
and with all the heavier crudes covered and with the XL's
ability to fit unusual installation conditions and their heavy
volume..
what is it that AOT cannot do ?
Good to see the many GREEN credentials so clearly
and also so timely for Alberta
this is what the QS PR should be leading with - the
viscosity figures are out there already but this new
certainty of Green progress is worthy of a lot of
publicity
the contracts can be left as a formality to follow
soon but with Trump and Zinke to the fore, the USA
needs to hear about the new Green way of being pro-
fossil fuels
Great use of the minilab and miniaturised AOT
was that the COC operating out of Calgary ?
great news and a great glimpse
of the scale of what AOT offers
and another surprise from the background
activity that no-one knows about
Blum, Bigger, Bundros, Dickson, Stubbs
and surely Mr Skelton has been included
and what of Mr McMullen ?
and John Valenti?
whatever the technicality / legality - I like
it that the whole crew has their bundle/ compensation
package if needed..
But more to the point - where is 1,000.000 for the
Longs Benevolent Fund ?
For all those unfortunates who have gone to endless
lengths and economies to avoid selling stock ?
for the roofs in need of repair, the houses in disrepair,
the teeth falling out...the therapists
hired to tackle drifting marbles ..??
we are survivors and an institution and we have
rights !!
where is our bundle??!!
hasn't this already been dealt with ?
And with the usual predictability - i.e if you are a long, it is either a good sign or without any significance either way
And if you are on the other side, whatever it is will be a sure
sign of fraudulence and a sinking ship
there have been considerable costs - the design and making the
mini lab , the XL prototype, the update of AOT and JHS , the
starting of an outbound sales initiative...and then there's Elektra
and whatever the Temple partnership costs
so, wherever it is coming from, the money is all about the building blocks...
which is first major revenue ?? the XL millions or COC next stage?
or maybe there will be a surprise from somewhere else..
the
And then there were 5
Mt Nathan Skelton now has 1,000,000 in his
package
When does Mr McMullen get his slice ?
how about the Brotherhood of Long Sufferers ?
when do we receive our recognition ?
Thanks again AISI
for the simple truth of things
in another form
which should be re-posted on a regular
basis !!
it looks like it is wisest to expect nothing
material until that committee / meeting decides
if they are going to pay the $4-5 million for the
XL prototype..or whatever (and yet another) strangely
elaborate process was attached to the potentially
customer-sponsored development etc etc
Heaven forbid that any client is going to open their
mouth publicly or their wallet - and just get on with
it - such a risk would be the end of their world..
the COC might be paying the second instalment soon
or might have done so already - but how long will
it take to apply the test results to the overall AOT
installation which we are told is the overall purpose ??
Here's to hoping that large amounts of the work and
calculations have been done in advance by COC and co
Those 4 x Form 4's x 1,000,000 shares
apologies (AISI) but I can't scroll back to your
post
what is the significance re the timing of these
procedures ? could they have happened at other times
and without all 4 directors acting together time-wise ??
Thanks
zerosum ...
so it looks like we are all on the same page re these
multiple global opportunities that are supposedly imminent
....these are probably true in essence but entirely tactical
at the moment ??
I am not an engineer and I would welcome any contribution
from those qualified to do so - but it seems disingenuous to
provide the progressive details of many collaborative schemes
in one breath and then to suggest that leases and purchases
are possible before those other schemes are signed and sealed
but maybe the CEO is obliged to sex it up for some parts of
the banking community..and I assume he is allowed by NDA's to reveal
all the contents and truths to the bankers?
God knows why he cannot get more enthusiasm for the stock before
contracts and Nasdaq..
5degrees or maybe you are Inspiration
reading your posts is invigorating and I do
hope the CEO reads them and let's hope he
will come round to seeing some things differently
but in my view it could well be counter-productive simply to
constantly go on and on, and on, re a dislike of his
working methods but which increasingly has an unmistakable
and very personal tone..
I don't think he needs to be lectured about what his duties
are nor what his methods should be - and your constant
anger about the share price and associated stats will just implode - especially as you are constantly demanding a transparency etc etc and which he just cannot provide
you can stamp your feet about what you want - but I have no
reason to believe that if he could be transparent, he would be;
do you ?
who knows how the oilmen respond to him ..as opposed to how they react to the technology he offers ? do they really care more about his pedigree or his table manners - as you appear to do - as opposed to his diligence re accommodating the clients' needs ?
I wish he would be more imaginative in his PR given that so much
information is already out of the bag : and why doesn't he explain this absence ?
Could it be that the NDA culture is so **** strict that even to explain the silences as they develop and become obsolete is forbidden ?
who knows ?
we don't
Thanks AISI for taking the trouble
to point out the flaws in the 'arguments'
which are repeated here, to put it diplomatically
and you were accurate re the timing of the other
QS executives' benefiting from the share packages
the reversion to the theme of Cecil Kyte's alleged dumping etc
has been as desperate and as misleading as references to SEC etc
New forms of publicity for new phase
I am hoping we can lobby QS with the idea of a more
pro-active and imaginative and flexible form of publicity
None of which would compromise the NDA's or commercial
secrets or any sensitivities and all of which could refer to
the new ecological and green elements now available to the industry
I simply do not accept that whole belts of publicity and success
could only happen in the wake of contracts etc
There is a mass of information already in the public domain - whether re Professor Tao and his Physics department or Steve Nappi
and Temple in general - and all the areas and ways in which the science has been validated and accepted ....might he be nominated for a Nobel Prize ?
Plus we have the PRCI and Peter Whelan and all the various
government and independent bodies who have overseen the transitions from theory and research to field and implementation
..the RMOTC, Departments of Energy and Defense and the EPA and SOuthern Research etc etc -
And with Kinder MOrgan and Trans C leading the way - would it be too much to expect for an executive or two to go public in their support for their own publicly documented commitments to the new age ?
QS should be pushing for more kinds of publicity - from Time Magazine downwards - why not ?
what happened to that graduate of Temple..Matt Miggliore ?
without this kind of initiative, we are stuck with this absurd share price and situation and for an indeterminate period of time while KM and the others take their time in testing every single angle
I don't believe for one moment that there will be one squeak of
contractual interest from anywhere in the world until all the North American testing is done...and who knows...done again
Zerosum - someone - can't you get down to S Barbara and have another lunch with CEO ?
Thanks AISI - as always
Good to know that the management - and John V ? - might
be able to support the QS finances if necessary
It is odd how comfortable things seem : we have learnt of
one $50,000 payment for the lab-test and of other lease payments and that the
various banks have offered a 'runway' on which the commercialisation can proceed...even that QS was spoilt for choice when it came to selecting creditors..
AND there is - apparently - the ongoing search for suitable
acquisitions - so there is no shortage of confidence, apparently
and we can only wonder about our fairy godfathers, the billionaires, who have yet to make any public impression..
maybe it was the banks and creditors who were mostly in
mind when the Updates were written...
all the global chit chat re clients - Iraq or Columbia or Wherever - seems highly unlikely to proceed before endless further refinements etc over in North America....and if there has been anything misleading I think it is the idea of chasing that list of clients for Lease or purchase orders etc based only on the exchange of samples for the Temple analysis
does anyone here really believe that any company - no matter how
straightforward things seem on paper - is going to lease or purchase ANYTHING before everything from SCADA downwards has been tested in the field ?
This blockage is why we need a very different tack on
PUBLICITY - led into by a hard hit via Trump et al: FOSSIL FUELS are GREEN...
the many reasons why KM I is still in
it is self-evident that the technology works and the
documented and legally-binding evidence tells us that
it works extremely well and to the effect that variations
such as XL are being designed and with the cumulative effect
that - as we are also told - more partners and companies are
sending more samples
and we also learn that there are custom / transportation
delays re the samples sent across the world
the slow pace looks like a part of the general success of
a technology still being finally assessed in all locations and with all oils and finally value engineered
and finally integrated with SCADA systems
and one reason to be positive has to be the specious and
pointless debate about how we would know if the
AOT had been returned ..and whether that would be
a material event or not etc etc..all of which provides some
doubters the opportunity to sound more impartial than
they are..not forgetting all the nonsense we had to read re the
Trans Canada tests and all the insistence here on failure - when the eventual facts were that the tests' timescale was determined by a power supply working at only 10% of capacity - but with results that were still impressive
KM are on record as systematising the condensate line and so on
- and my memory fails as to whether there is another XL project being conducted with a long term partner..not offshore, not a COC
...and whether this could only be KMI..
looks to me that KMI wants every inch of pipe covered with AOT (and maybe also JHS ?) ...and
maybe with a good deal being offered by QS per an entire pipeline
a deal which has also allowed QS to test AOT on ALL the oils managed by KM...
Good post yesterday Armour
Having re - read the document twice more, there is
so much good stuff there
How many ways can it be said that this technology is past
being questioned ? The only questions now seem to be where,
with the right design, it cannot be integrated and there is not a single thread from the past that is not being followed through and applied by supportive institutions across the board
The one off or bespoke installation sets a precedent for
all the more complex installations of the future - and we did learn that the first SCADA process had successfully integrated with the normal AOT and that another normal AOT will support the XL as a slipstream application
The only negative for me being the time scale ..and why on earth is that $4-5 million dollar cost subject to such a devolved process ? why cant the trusted long term partner just pay it ??
But it looks as if the success of the AOT is a Given - as you suggested - a success which is implicit in how the variations are being designed
But - if every inch of every pipeline is to be covered, why is anyone going to make a purchase or lease until the appropriately comprehensive level of testing and fine tuning has been done ?
It would be nice to think that contracts (involving the simpler pipelines/oils can be inclusive of some
vaguer elements which can be subject to final works ..but is that likely ??
Hurray - progress established in improvised
and bespoke XL
with $4 -5 million cost to be approved this quarter
I was about to complain about the absence of news re the
ordinary pipelines and AOT..
but
and am I right that the paragraph - 9th i think - starting
with the words, "if approved", refers to the real progress
with the ordinary AOT??
Strangely presented though ? It could easily be
mistaken for a facet of the one-off improvisation in
also needing approval ..it seems almost buried news..
not worth a bold headline or whatever ??
?
Hi Zerosum and Snoop and Longs
My concern right now is about timelines re sales
and whether the new Aot-testing-lab is going to slow down
whatever negotiations/ processes were already perhaps further
advanced
it's got to be a good idea to have such a flexible testing service
but could those clients being sought for lease or purchase
orders also not be interested in further tests ? maybe they
and their oils are simpler and have already been comprehensively
and silently analysed and programmed..?
also : it seems possible to me that the new XL model is for
Kinder Morgan...and that KM as a partner is now being used as
a full on testing site for all possible oils and technical
possibilities...
true or not re the XL, which client is going to make an order
of any kind..lease or purchase...while this testing - or maybe any testing - remains ongoing..? and if KM -as seems probable - were happy with the condensate work...how long before the rest of their oils are similarly schematised..?
If it works on every oil, why on earth not plan to instal AOT everywhere ?...but which client would purchase on that scale without full testing of everything..? could some oils be more
accessible to such a straightforward purchase ?
That last Update seemed odd : is it possible that those clients being approached for those contracts had already been through the kind of things we read about in those 3 collaborative projects ?
or did they not need such collaborations ? or could those be
factored into a contract ?
etc
Me me me and transparency
the CEO has never offered us the transparency we might
wish for - and it would obviously be absurd for him to do so
he has offered to tell us whatever he can but that does not
mean we get proprietary information - and we should certainly not expect a running commentary..ie a reference back to what was
referred to
if we learn that further tests are to include a 30 trial on multi-batch processes etc etc ,that degree of sharing with us is the most valuable factor in itself
the only really important facts then are that we know that there is a partnership which is ongoing and which include such real-world and forward looking elements - what more could a new technology need ?
There is no legal or business pre-requisite which says that we must be told how that 30 day test went...
what was important was that a filed document contained specifications that then became proprietary ..
quite apart from the general and forward momentum continuing and thus telling us indirectly what we learn anyway from other sources
and that we would not have learnt about these details in the first place unless there was high expectations of success or workable progress
etc