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.
I had to laugh at that.
It is not cherry picking to go through the terms of a contract.
Cherry picking is taking a pre-judged position and then selectively finding bits which agree with that pre-judged opinion. E.g. using "continued interest" without balancing it with "is not commercially viable".
To be fair, many are guilty of cherry picking to make points, but forensically going through all the terms of a contract and pointing out it means JS in sum and going through every item of a 10Q to find the facts, is not cherry picking.
C'mon. Guys.
No revenue and they are spending 751 a month on rent and advertising it as a saving. This is a company on the CUSP remember! Do your own D/D! Pay day is coming! Nothing amiss?
What next.
10Q 2017: "We have now moved into Gregg Biggers Bedroom and are paying $250 per month rent to Mr and Mrs Bigger, Sr and we just need to raise $1,000,000 dollars for the payroll (including former incumbent Kyte)".
Pay day is coming?
One day this will all seem like a bad dream.
So much points to this company being a scam. A non-college educated former soldier getting $300K a year come hell or high water, a former (not very succesful) plane flyer getting paychecks after paycheck on a redundancy deal, an SEC halt, SEC investigations, an endless line of products that never get sold, a burn pile of cash which is 100,000,000 dollars long and with a market cap of somewhere between nothing and nothing... being a public entity has afforded a level of obscurity and protection that no private investor would tolerate. Where's my money? Whats it doing? No answers with QSEP: its all FAR to complicated for the investors. All the speculation here could be answered with a straight answer to a demanded straight question. The fact its obscured, so much, tells you so much. Why do these guys play games with us? ITS BECAUSE ITS WORTHLESS!
If you're businesslike, then be businesslike: If QSEP is not getting me an ROI by 1/3/7/9/12 months/years then I'm writing it off and will spend my energies elsewhere.
But honestly, honestly, Bigger, Kyte all deserve to be in prison for this.
FML
Believing in things - even very hard - does not turn them into facts.
In the case of this company facts are pretty few and far between, so one must turn to evidence.
You can believe what you like, the evidence does not point to a company which is about to make a sale, to KMI or anyone else.
If QSEP utterly tanked, found itself stopped at the SEC, bankrupted and its board of directors in jail, we would see posts that they were all traitors, but still that AOT is gods gift to oil producers and everyone was just betrayed. AND IT WOULD STILL BE ON IT WAY TO ME/China/South America/Norway!!!!!
WAIT! THE SEC DOESN'T BELIEVE FALSE LIES!
>>> Like QSEP 10Qs!
LOL!
It hasn't been proven except by himself.
Peer review is virtually non-existent.
His work is sloppy, he hasn't rebutted critical reviews, there is no replication of his experiments by third parties.
Even if proven (e.g. "build tornado walls") is it commercially viable?
Like all other professors, professor Tao is capable of being wrong and of having dubious ethics.
- Professor Catherine MacKinnon said all heterosexual intercourse is rape.
- Professor David Ralston is being investigated for raping an unconscious woman.
- Professor Ben Carson doesn't think climate change is going on (contra 97% of all other scientists)
- Professor Leonard Susskind thinks Professor Stephen Hawking is wrong.
Professor Tao thinks he can break the laws of thermodynamics, and Professor Gulder tore that one apart. In addition Professor Tao thinks you can control tornados by building gigantic walls. Just because someone has a certain rank in a certain institution doesn't mean automatically either their science or morals are good.
I have read them. Let me assume I've missed something here.
Where is it in black and white in a QSEP news release post that KMI have installed the AOT and shown that it works?
Its the same when they said that the AOT test at TCPL was "a success". Its playing with words: the test was a success as the device was, in fact, tested. TCPL then terminated. Successful test, dud device.
We can pass on what KMI say for now.
Until QSEP and KMI say the same thing, the default position is "not happened".
My guess is multibillion oil companies have significant sums to invest and put some resources into potential new technologies and making sure that they are not missing a trick, even if, and especially if, in some instances, the claims are not proven.
Most of science is disproving hypotheses.
My guess is KMI has been silently cancelled and it might come out in the next 12 months so that shareholders can indeed be bilked some more. Lets face it, neither QSEP nor KMI have said its success and any claim that they have, is, at this stage, extreme reading between the lines and wishful thinking.
Its not a conspiracy, more like a scam.
Exactly my point. However the amount of rope that they are extended appears unreasonable. 16 years, $100m dollars, and yet there is no point at which enough is enough.
If one is to avoid being sucked in forever, where do you draw the line? My suggestion is one determines, in advance, how much rope you can string out. And when that condition is met or not met, you know where you stand. Its pretty much how lots of things are sorted out, for example: you owe me my rent money, you're running late OK, I'll give you three months to straighten it out or I'm sending the bailiffs in.
However, STWA is able to endlessly string its landlords happily along defending them to the hilt - Its not me or sano or PE or SoxFan who have got your money!
I see....
However, the level of proof you require is "QSEP put it in a news release" coupled with "they must have meant this" or "they must have meant that". That's not only a very low bar to set, its one which is flexible, set up by QSEP and moved by speculation as to what they really, /really/ meant (or implied).
However if you do set a bar such as "sales contract in place by Q1 2017", no doubt by Q1 2017 it will become "sales contract in place by end of second half 2017". What can we committ to to prove the point?
We will remain just here, saying the same thing, again and again.
I suppose I'm asking the question what is the criteria of failure, where do you draw the line.
Scientific theories have to be disprovable, i.e. there has to be condition where it can be disproved. The obvious one is always "all swans are white". You spot a black swan and the theory is disproved. In practice however you wouldn't put endless resources into spotting a black swan, you'd be reasonable to say, OK I am going to count x swans and if all x are white there's a very high probability that that the theory "all swans are white" is correct.
What the same condition for QSEP? Clearly its not sales, but if you said something like "i shall consider the prospects of the company nil if you get to Q1 2017 with no sales and no contracts in force." then you have something solid.
The alternative is giving them endless rope and endless support which is just faith. They will never disappoint you as the bar is not just set low, its non-existent.
I am curious as to what one will do if the following does not happen:
Its nothing of the sort:
IT'S NOW CONFIRMED that KINDER MORGAN want the PROVEN AOT as per the RECENT PR below
The words confirmed, proven are really not justifiable the PR says basically the same old guff we've heard before from this company.
Where is the PR from KM saying the same thing? No? It it not reasonable to expect both parties to agree?
Positive means nothing.
Facts do.
Bring on facts.
At least bring on something that two organisations agree on.
Not wrong.
Wait for KM to say it.
Not you filling up on speculation.
Absolutely. There is no reason for speculation. Why haven't we been told? By KM and QS.
That's just not true. It's your interpretation of something which could be lies. If kinder Morgan announce it and qsep announce it then yes it almost certainly is. But it's only qsep.
The assertion on kinder Morgan is not a fact. It is a recycling of news releases from qsep in an increasingly slanted light. Km could have terminated months ago but see no value or requirement in announcing it.
The company knows there's a psychology here, around the corner, over the rainbow and it employs it to massive effect. One you've been roped in there's the story. There are no facts in QSEP just speculation and belief. One can twist any word, any addition of an "s" to make plural, imply confidence means=contracts and not confidence means confidence trick. The lack of the former means the latter? Anything QSEP says can mean anything. There's no fact checking there's comparison between NRs, assertions, opinions, quotes within quotes. How can you know? Well you can set limits like you do with naughty children and debtors, one can be reasonable and one can take control:
Here's a strategy: until KMI say they have accepted the AOT assume its not accepted. In the first place if it happens you then have two distinct entities saying the same thing: nice way to determine truth used by all sorts, if the stories match up you have something more solid. If Story A = Story B I'm more likely to believe both. Story A = Story A is unsurprising. I think it says a lot that that Biggers DO know what shareholders want to know. They could just clarify the situation. Instead of clarifying what is easy, straightforward, expected and legal to do we get what is tantamount to encouragement of mindless speculation. Who benefits from speculation? Not the shareholders.
Here's another strategy: put a date on it. Lets go with something confident and far enough away to let it all work: second half of 2016. Lets go with 31st December, final date. If the company is saying more of the same on that date and the share price has not rocketed forward then sell up (on any available loss-minimising spike). Here one is taking control of the issue. Otherwise one is merely making unverifiable assertions and delving into yet more faith.
My prediction: if the company hasn't disappeared, they will be saying the same thing on 31st December 2016 (as they were previous Christmases), the speculation will still be rife, there will have been another sale of warrants at .10 and the PPS will be below .15. There may be another distraction (AOT for chocolate, for example).
This leopard didn't change its spots.
Correct.
Ask yourself "what does QSEP do?". Does it sell oil equipment, or does it sell shares? It sells shares. And its not as if they haven't said they are selling oil equipment, they have, for over 10 years, with devices that never existed, were never manufactured, with purchase orders that never materialised and where one device plan was shelved for the next one that would change the world, if not for the world, for those select few who had shares.....
round and round we go! same thing will be said next year.
That is absolute and utter speculation.
You beat everyone if the technology works, is commercially viable, and is taken up: that means consistent sales. Recent posts about ROI have been absolute flight of fancy in the face of exceptionally modest PRs - all of which have previously been shown to be wide of the mark - which could - but categorically do /not/ address any material fact of concern. All of these flights of fancy do not matter one whit... how long did it take QSEP to admit that TC actually did cancel the test? 2 years? It never admitted anything about any previous device? What really happened in China, with LG partners. Its the same story: wide open spaces for speculation which is being filled with fantasy.
QSEP could tell you what was happening, categorically.
They do not.
Why is that?
That'll be inside information then?
News releases contain just enough "forward looking statements" to leave a wide open field for speculation, which is what we're seeing here in this thread over the last few days. QSEP has been scrupulous in not naming names and dating dates and providing any form of verifiable factual information. Hence commentary can go all the way from "the device has not even passed safety inspection" to "the device has passed tests and two lease payments have been triggered". Both statements have the potential to be facts but QSEP does not say.
Who benefits from such a wide open field of potential outcomes? Not investors. That's for sure. We'd all love some solid info but as I've previously argued the big gap in information (which could have been filled by the last letter) remains wide open. If the positive speculation is true then PPS would go through the roof which is an outcome everyone desires. There are facts available. But QSEP is not telling. Why?
Cui bono.
Again this points to a business who's main activity is selling hope and selling shares.
...do your own D/D
...using past experience on previous devices and past experience with TC it seems to me that even if KMI do terminate the lease we've got at least 12-24 months to wait for QSEP to get close to acknowledging it which means 12-24 months of speculation about it including it being hailed as a great success, continued interest, with no evidence. Remember last we heard about previous devices was that they worked great and its NEVER been updated.
The status of KMI should be as clear as bell. But with this SCAM company they are not going to tell you or admit until they absolutely have to. KMI will be relegated to "continued interest" for a year or two even after they terminate.
That's quite an astonishing twist:
Its the same pattern every time. Ambiguities where there could be clarity. Has KMI accepted the device? Yes? No? We don't know. We can interpret "encouraged" and other non-meaning words either way. You can choose to think what you like. The company is going to take 2 years, or possibly forever to tell you. Remember the MagChargr? That was for sale, with orders, contracts. Remember TC? That was en route too. All quietly dropped.
However if QSEP really did have an order? A successful test? can you think they *wouldn't* be shouting that from the rooftops and publishing REAMS of data that proved it rather then cherry picking one or two figures here or there, burying entire reports, burying cancellations?
This company is a scam, it sells shares and not miracle products for the oil business. They had to make an AOT to continue to sell shares. The AOT was for investors to feel good about not oil companies. TC knew it was a nonce and sent it away.
Do you own D/D... and use your brain.
I can reply this one.
1. Its a GREAT story. Its like a soap opera. Company has device, or does it?
Millions can be made! OR LOST!
2. Its a great human thing that we do, we co-operate: on stories, gossip, what's true what's not true, this company has it all. It has MONEY, lost or won, PEOPLE, in or out, and CONTROVERSY, does it work, or not. It should be a film with no-one knowing to the last minute whether its a game changer or not. I can even see Tom Cruise finding out if he's suckered or not in the last minute.
Except, that is just the best way to get people to invest in sh*t.
I hope you don't mind a point by point reply.
this is a company that spent 100million dollars and has less than half a million on the bank, no assets, no sales, and no dividends. this is a company that told us it was ready to sell the Elektra, MagCharger, (add device name here). This is a company that told us it was going to open up business in China, with LG Partners, with major oil firms. All of which ended in silence.
So lets party like its 1998.
Maths from the 10Q.
"The Bigger Picture" ho ho.
QSEP spent $102,481,544 over 18 years of business. That's over $5m per year.
Current cash on hand $592,720.
"We have half of one percent of the money we received having achieved no sales, and made no dividends, and acquired no assets, over 18 years".
What else could have been done with $100,000,000 other than pay salaries and buy Cecils land?
You'd have earned more from putting it in a bank account.
My point was that there was endless hot air and speculation expended here and on other forums as to what happened to TC, was the lease active or not? It was a major subject of speculation and vehement discussion which could have been settled at a stroke in 2014.
FFS from the 10Q filed today.