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.
That would explain the recent and multiple mediatisation ....
sounds like a buyout ....
Correction to ROI due to energy savings :
If the 2,1 Megawatt savings is per pump and not per station as per Earth1's recent post, the ROI of 21% below becomes 21% x 3 = 63%
If you take the amortization and operating costs out, the ROI would be between 50% and 60%, only taking into account the energy savings and not the flow effect.
An easy to remember figure : 1 Million $ of energy savings per pump per year !
----------------------------------------------------------
If you replace the 2,1 Megawatt per station of my post below by 9,5 Megawatt x 75% (9,5 being the figure on page 6 of your document), you have a savings of 7,1 megawatt, so my ROI below becomes 21% x 7,1/2,1 = 71%.
And if you take only 50% for power saving, the ROI becomes :
21% x 9,5 x 50%/2,1 = 47%
This is consistent with your figures.
Agree Tedco, brokers are technical people makings transactions on stocks, not to be confused with people with investing skills. Otherwise, with the amount of time they spend on stocks they would all be millionnaires.
Donald Yacktman once said that investors make serious money when there is a mismatch between an investor’s assumptions about the future of the company and the expectations of the general investor community at large.
Certainly, but the trick is to make a decision beforehand. It wont be easy to buy at 4$ (10 time the present price)because you'r hoping it to go to 20$.... Let's see ...
Yep,
somebody saw the negative posts so he decided to buy ... lol
Of course if the 2,1 Megawatt savings is for 1 pump and not the whole station, then the ROI would not be 21% but 21% multiplied by number of pumps.
If you add up the diesel factor instead of the grid, you may well approach a 100% ROI just by energy savings.
To how much does the energy savings amount to, apart from the flow effect ?
The energy savings of 75% brings the power from 2,8 Megawatt to 0,7 Megawatt per station.
Ballpark cost of 0.05 $/KilowattHour in the US so 50$ per MegawattHour.
So a savings of 2,1 Megawatt per station leads to :
2,1 x 50$ x 24h/day x 365day/year = 919,800 $ /year per station. At 4,3 M$ per AOT pack, the ROI is "only" 21%.
I would believe then that the flow effect is mainly the one that is pursued by the customers as the ROI as calculated by Earth1 could be between 100 and 200%.
Thank you Earth1 for this detailed explanation.
Earth1,
Myrka is referring to an old discussion where his position was that :
- 1 AOT only had NO effect on the flow, and you need to have ALL pumps outfitted with an AOT to see the flow increase,
...Whereas Alkaline and I said that 1 AOT had an effect albeit small equal to 1/N of the flow increase of N AOT, and X AOT had an effect of X/N of N AOT.
You don't need to have all pumps outfitted with an AOT to see a flow increase, precisely because the incompressibility of liquids transmits the effects of 1 AOT to all the pipe.
---------------------------------------------------------
But since you only took two cases : 1 or All, maybe a clarification would be necessary.
I think this is an important point as it gives the range of possibilities and flexibility offered to the customers.
Thank you for your lights...
Hi Zerosum,
I noticed the address of the pdf file (that details the implication of the turbulence reduction effect) you gave was truncated in many of your posts. The correct address is :
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/j0qj5i3lb5hqy6y/AAAiWH58qZc0l2qKEDQ8IVxRa?dl=0
Thanks
Zerosum,
Zerosum, I think you are right about the significance of Dr Tao’s last paper and Wednesday’s presentation. I am fortunate enough to have been in touch with a friend of a friend, who is a shareholder with a scientific background. He has made an analysis of Tao’s paper and found that the implications are farther than what we had all thought and hoped for. Although his paper was first destined to his close friends, he has agreed at my request to have it available for your reading. Here is his analysis. I have just pasted below the summary of his paper.
Disclaimer : You are big boys, Do your own research and make your own decisions !!!!
Happy reading ! (PS : I'am on a 1 post/day diet so no immediate answer...)
“AOT turbulence suppression feature greatly expands potential market for AOT”
Personal review od Dr Tao's paper.
Article - https://www.dropbox.com/sh/j0qj5i3lb5hqy6y/AAAiWH58qZc0l2qKEDQ8IVxRa?dl=0
KEY POINT FROM PAPER
Below is a summary of the key new effect identified in the paper.
• For a certain reduction in viscosity,
o Under laminar flow, the power required reduces in direct proportion to viscosity.
o Under turbulent flow the power required DOES NOT reduce in direct proportion to viscosity.
It is more like 1:2. Reference – Tao Page 1
“For example, to increase the flow rate by 30% we only need to increase the pressure by 30% for laminar flow, but for a turbulence flow we need to increase the pressure by 58.3%;”
o Therefore if AOT only reduced viscosity if would be BEST for upstream laminar pipelines and LESS attractive for mid-stream turbulent flow
• However what is shown in the paper is that AOT not only reduces viscosity but also suppresses turbulent flow, making it laminar and more efficient for a given flow rate.
• It’s much more than just being about the percentage benefits.
• The change massively expands the potential market of AOT within the mid-stream market (to a much larger scale so than has been appreciated previously).
SUMMARY
1. AOT Benefits for laminar (smooth non turbulent) flow was already known to be compelling.
2. AOT was thought to have less benefit for turbulent pipelines in percentage savings terms.
3. However AOT is now shown to suppress turbulent flow as is found in big high speed mid-stream pipelines.
4. Dramatic increase in percent benefits for turbulent flow mid-stream pipelines, approximately doubling the benefit over what we knew before this paper.
5. Mid-stream now core market, big capital big ticket item (more so than upstream) most pipelines overbooked many will need it.
6. DRA were for turbulent market. DRA’s are useless for laminar flow. However AOT makes turbulent flow laminar so DRA’s market is shrinking and AOT’s market is exploding.
7. AOT vastly superior to DRA’s. No chemicals, saves energy, no refining steps and DRA’s don’t apply unless flow is turbulent, where AOT handles laminar and turbulent.
8. 75% power savings on Keystone. Have seen other savings figures e.g. 28% - Daqing below. These are both enormous potential savings. Even if we take a very conservative 10% saving, the capital cost of AOT is repaid from additional toll revenue in the first year. See below.
9. Much more of the 200,000 miles of global pipeline are now AOT’s target market and with a higher level of benefits applying to turbulent flow than was previously appreciated by the market place.
10. Valuation has just gone up dramatically.
Thank you for this positive statement ...
You are right AISI. The AOT consumption is negligible compared to the pump. The power reduction is indeed 75% !
It does not violate any NDA if the parties agree.
This is the first time we have names and figures in the same article : Tao, STWA, Keystone, energy saving by pump percentage (which implies flow increase in case of full outfitting).
Either it's a made up article, either it announces big decisions ... You should at least hedge your risk by buying a few shares.... LOL
SHL : I have only 1 message per day so I will reply to you here :
there is a 75% energy savings per pump, but if you add the AOT's consumption, the global savings is 50%. Question is : what relation with the flow.
The relation with viscosity seem quite clear to me : pump power divided by 3 means viscosity is really much lower, at least 20%.
And since the flow is proportional to 1/viscosity, the flow increases by 25%. Of course if the whole pipeline is fitted. For a duration of 11 hours effect, there is a need of 1 device per 50 miles.
There is no shorting. One of the posters explained two times that it was the market makers needing to sell intraday before buying thus the short transaction, that will just last a few hours or minutes. Nothing to do with people banking on a future lower price... Have you observed that after a day of trading the price goes back to where it was....market makers...
Anyone remembers the relationship between viscosity and flow?
I think flow is proportional to 1/viscosity so if viscosity is 20% lower flow is 25% higher. (1/(1-20%). Better buy stocks quickly ...
lol ! Soxfan, you try hard, but not hard enough ......
If you have read Peter Lynch's "up on Wall street" he says : you know a stock will be up, you just don't know when. He cites numerous examples of very good small companies with good profits whose stock have been lagging several years for no apparent reason, until they shoot up.
I agree with you Zerosum. I believe there will be an unfolding of news and events as soon as march.
Bundros seems to be the right guy to input into writing the contracts due to his knowledge of pipeline economics....
TC tests results + knowledge of pipeline economics = capacity to write a contract
just waiting .....
it's funny how some can find that the appointment of the ex-CFO of the large pipeline operator in the world, is negative or at best insignificant .... lol
Sano said STWA did not pay much Lol !
you seem genuinely interested by this question ...
any last bit of worry remaining ?
Some investors have expressed their wish that Stwa inform them about the articles that have been published in the trade magazines, so that they don't discover them by chance (such as the recent napipelines article). That is what is imo happening here.
You live in a world where CEO's are crooks, even though they have shown exceptional value in their military and professional career; where long haul scientific and industrial efforts are signs of failure; where innovative and revolutionary devices are destined for failure; where clear involvement with multibillion companies are downplayed as mere errors from those companies. Throw your iphone to the bin. It does not really exist. The visionaries behind it never existed. It was just a dream...
Must be frightening for the shorters to see how the pps shoots up at the slightest buy ...
The schism is in the timelines.
STWA/TC have theirs, the posters here have their own, exarcerbated by their (my) hopes of riches.
Why should the timelines coincide...
This was my Wakhy moment....