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.
He said "encouraged" - and there's a world of difference between buying a lottery ticket where there is at least a genuine outside chance of winning (on machines which are often independently audited) compared to QSEP which deliberately distorts and misleads to sell its "tickets". I'm sure you don't need the list again but what happened to all the previous devices, deals, tests with no results.
The OP is correct and should seek advice.
This is not about persuading people sell off their stock at rock bottom prices.
It is about the fact that many people believe that the company is certainly less than forthcoming with the truth and has a history of bold claims and zero delivery and that is spends most of its time selling shares and most of its money on salaries for the "management team". As has been pointed out elsewhere, where else can the current CEO get that much coin without a college degree. All their PR is about selling shares rather than selling product. The company has got *no* assets after decades of taking money, has sold not one device after decades of selling shares.
It is about those who have been sold shares in this company taking some action to recover their funds - including taking legal advice. Investors have currently lost their shirts, the company should at least be minimising its costs.
It is about other small time investors not losing their savings to a get rich quick scheme built on minimal transparency.
It is indeed frustrating that sheer belief and large amounts of noise, bits of insider information, and speculation is considered more valuable than facts and keeps this company going and keeps people parting with hundreds of thousands of dollars even recently to keep overpaid and underqualified people in post.
This company has spent millions on themselves and not delivered anything to shareholders, not even gracing them with information it could give and certainly not telling the whole truth.
This is about the fact investors have been lied to and could do something else other than cheerleading the people who lied to them and spent their money.
Uh?????
Dude, not everything they say is true. You can't believe it all. If you did you'd be posting about how the Zefs, Elektra, etc was about to take off and how LG partners were about to install an AOT on their secret pipeline, how China was about to order a thousand units....
...Remember, just because a company needs to raise money doesn't mean that its telling the truth!
Let me put a positive spin on. Lets say Bigger and Tao are basically two sides of a Steve Jobs for the oil industry, lets say I know Bigger personally and find him trustworthy and believable, lets say I believe that the AOT works, he just needs to jump a few hurdles and then the product will take off making his company a multibillion behemoth. Which I can get a piece of. Lets say I have some money to invest in my trustworthy, genius, freind's company say $200,000. But let me do a little bit of DD and ask some questions. Most importantly, how are you going to spend the money Gregg, what hurdles? Your salary ... right .... how much? $290,000 pa? (put appropriate emoji here). So you want me to fund your lifestyle then? Any businessman who's done anything in pre-sales mode knows you have a subsistence salary, at basic costs level. You ask, how much is your rent, not how big a house do you think you deserve! You don't start at high-flying executive before you've made a single sale.
Q: "What if it doesn't work Gregg, do you put your house up or give the money back?"
A: "No, there's this thing called limited liability and I can get a new job..."
Q: "So basically I buy your shares, which pays your salary, and if it doesn't work out, I've got your paper and you've spent the money and left?"
A: "We have assets too"
Q: "Ah great, land? buildings?"
A: "Patents".
Now lets come crashing back to earth and see that the chances of this being a Steve Jobs are vanishingly small and he's a former bank manager, that Tao has made a few crackpot claims (gigantic walls to stop tornadoes) along the way, that the company is exploiting corporate forms so that the risks to the management are hugely limited and the rewards only limited by their ability to selling shares, that ALL risk is transferred to shareholders who have no chance of taking the board to task, that this has been going on now for time measured in decades, that all expenditure has to date been 99% covered through issuing stock, that it has a very long sheet of devices which will revolutionise the entire world, but have failed to make it to the factory let alone the sales room, that the former CEO (who has a Trump for president T-Shirt, LOL!) bailed before the centrepiece achievement of the TransCanada test, that in any case the proceeds of the TransCanada lease were small fry compared to the income from selling shares, that TransCanda cancelled the lease anyway, that the company persistently targets investors rather than customers, that it cherry picks its testing procedures and results and reports and does not realse information which is not transparent and can be interpreted any which way you like.
Dude, my man, just because someone is involved in the business of trying to sell things doesn't automatically mean that they are telling the truth. All that PR wasn't aimed at any oil company it was aimed at people with a few dimes to spare!
1. We're running out of money!
2. Make fluff news releases to raise share price !
3. Sell warrants at below share price to raise money!
4. CEO MUST HAVE HIS SALARY OF $290K!
5. JOB DONE!!!!
Shareholders are unwilling and UNABLE to take CEO and Board to task because, heck, businessmen who phone up oil companies are superheroes. And never lie. Because lies are like kryptonite to businessmen.
Just following up on your thread. I think the fact that both you and PE are talking about this matter, and the evidence you have to rely on, really still points to whether you believe or not. Either QSEP is a lemon, or its liquid gold. Both viewpoints explain both the current price of the stock and its potential value. This only benefits STWA as either its massively overvalued or massively undervalued. It can't acquire a real value and if you swing that the latter is a good position to take, then you're IN.
However, my view is that at the end of the day this is supposed to be scientific. And this means tests which are properly described and repeatable, with full dimensions, power units, conditions, temperature, etc etc etc etc and the like, and then of course peer review and publication. Whatever happened at RMOTC clearly does not fit this bill. It should not even be possible to split hairs over the scope of the details you and PE are arguing about. The fact that this debate takes place, i.e. AISI saying its scientific, PE saying its not, shows here's too much room for belief. Science is science, the same facts happen again and again, that's it. And it ain't good that Gulders peer review ripped the guts from the entire Tao paper in short shrift.
The fact is, this debate could be settled outright by proper full disclosure. The fact this hasn't happened says more about it than the speculation of armchair pipeline engineers. QSEP can make a mint for its investors just by proving what they say is true. Why don't they?
It could be false but the broad gist "did Cecil benefit from his time at STWA" only has one answer, and if its not the salary alone, there are many other options and I think most people can name a few, that Swiss firm, proxies, perhaps. And there's bailing at exactly the point of alleged success? We're very firmly into speculation here (oh! joy!) but because its may not fit into an a priori plan doesn't mean that Cecil honourably walked away with nothing but a gold watch.
INFORMATION STWA PLEASE!!!
Potty. If the DRA business were threatened by QSEP they could buy the whole firm for a few million dollars and then either exploit the technology or bury it.
yes. its possible to make mistakes in both investing, buying and testing.
Myspace, AOL Time Warner, Lehman Brothers, Marconi, etc etc etc.
I do not think either QSEP or KM have some magic shield which means that plugging a device into a line to see if it works somehow demonstrates that said device is infallible, the science proven, or the firms run by the omniscient. Especially given the calibre of the junior partner.
I think its fair to assume that KM are involved in a test deployment. They have not committed to buying it. But equally TC did a test and then nothing. Its certainly possible that clever people make silly decisions, it happens all the time. The biggest multi billion dollar banks in the world employing massive brainpower failed to spot the housing bubble which destroyed the economy in 2008. Do I think KM can make a mistake? Sure!
The pattern with this company though has been failed devices, no sales, no news of substance. Big companies have been previously named and then disappeared - just check past PR. You've got one potential egg from a basket of eggs over decades. I expect more of the same.
The truth is, its still all speculation.
As we're doing some re-iterations.
OK yes its a fair assumption that it is KM's line that the new test is going on. Point taken - the NDA says you can say where but you can't say who. You write well and you made a fair point, its accepted.
It doesn't change my core arguments which are: the company has had numerous press releases which are all positive sounding, and end up nowhere over a duration exceeding 10 years and several devices. Name any device pre-AOT and its silently dropped; name any relationship pre-TC and you have the same, possibly including TC. Same argument is that ambiguity rules where there could be precision, the company does not make precise statements - even when it can - and thrives off speculation. Its also true the company has made not one sale of any device and spent over $100m of shareholder cash and has no asset to speak of. Even with latest PR we are at the point of $100m spent and we have: a test deployment of the latest device.
I /do/ believe there is a strong possibility of this being a scam. My thrust has been to encourage shareholders to take legal advice. I do think its possible I'm wrong, I just don't think its likely.
And as ever, we are on the cusp of finding out, yet again, with the latest test deployment, which sounds so much like other previous tests, sales, deployments, and so on and so on.
Unfortunately I do believe its also fair to say that until there's any precision on anything (such as SRI results, narrative on MagChargr, Elektra, TC deployment, etc etc), pretty much anything we have to say will end up in a reposting/shouting match ad nauseum. The owners of this company are utterly divorced from the management of it. The management of it is not accountable as the owners are too dispersed and numerous and otherwise involved in a shouting match on the only forums they have available to properly take the management to account. The last opportunity for any accountability was in Hawaii, about as far as possible from mainland anywhere and prohibitively expensive for any but the very well off.
Accountability is what appears to be demanded yet in massively short supply because average Joe is deferential to pilots, bank managers, soldiers, senators, oil companies, big organisations, publicly traded companies, assuming they are well meaning and honest. My suggestion is ignore that and ask something different: they spent your money: how? What, out of this great, orchestrated, collaborative effort have we made: can we have some answers?
Only one entity can benefit from the ad nauseum arguments here and elsewhere and it isn't any shareholder or shorter, its the management.
So its fair to assume the test is at KM, although its all shush. Good post, plenty of detail, thank you.
Nonetheless, its a shame no-one has been able to refer to the same level of detail on MagCharger, Electra, ZEFS, China, SRI, and so on. Although the PR is positive news (much like other, older, positive news), its no where near a vindication.
You quote the PR which doesn't say Kinder Morgan at all. It tells you where but not who. Are there are sub-contractors on site as well as KM themselves?
That's what I don't understand. When they have a perfect opportunity to name a big "name" they give the place, not a who and its left to speculation to fill in that gap.
I'm not saying its not KM - it might well be. But its odd.
The Bigger Picture.
I don't think its time to crack open the Asti just yet. The actual news is quite thin (assuming its not just an outright lie): the AOT has had some work done on it and its being tried out again on a line pumping thinner stuff which is probably something to to with KM. Notably they don't specifically say its KM - which is a curious omission given the credibility that being specific could raise. Again one is left with speculation to fill in the gaps. One thing that I think should be clear but isn't made so, is that the TC testing (or any previous testing) is not commented on. Its never been announced one way or another.
In one sense we have a carefully worded return to a testing stage from a company which has never released a negative PR yet has a checkered history. All the previous questions about previous devices, previous tests, previous results, and previous deals remain unanswered and it seems to be in line with previous great PRs which are always on the edge of greatness. The soap opera continues. Will they? Won't they? Place your chips now!
I only made my comment about the recent letter to shareholders Dec 1. That AOT does not get namechecked there, its a fact.
Previous communications. Yes, the AOT is all over previous NRs. As was the Elektra before that.
You know it would be much more interesting to read what you've actually got to say rather than this re-posting, scrap book thing that's going on. I've read all these posts and done the DD. I do offer an alternative explanation and came to a different conclusion.
What makes you BELIEVE this?
Again, this is speculation. What does the NDA cover? Does it say that no-one is allowed to say it doesn't work? Most NDAs cover intellectual property including know how, know what, which is designated confidential information. etc etc. They don't necessarily cover things such as "we are not doing business with each other" or "the test failed". Are any of these NDAs published anywhere?
I said "namecheck". Its not mentioned. In fact its so vague if you read it in isolation you might not even know what the company tries to do, other than work in the energy sector.
Anyway, live fearlessly, etc.
The bottom line is that is really speculation. You could have an answer, but QSEP isn't giving one. You can hope they learned, you can hope they got closer and didn't hit a dead end, you "think" they will get it right. This is very far from solid conclusions on solid evidence, which is my point. For something which is supposed to demonstrate these things, there's nothing we can get our teeth into. And given the thing has been built and tested I don't think its because the information isn't available. Just like the information must be available on everything else (LG Partners, MagChargr, Elektra, etc etc etc.), its because they don't want to say.
Here's the major problem with QSEP - and I think a lot of people will be trying to weigh this up - is it true the technology works, or is it not? What is the chance that it is a scam? And if the tech partially works, what are its prospects? And what you need to make an informed decision on it are facts - and basically what we've got are new releases - here repeated ad nauseam - and inferences elsewhere. And the conclusion you draw is partially a result of strength of the evidence you've got in support of that conclusion.
QSEPs claims are that certain devices reduce emissions, make cars more efficient, make fuel more efficient, make pipelines pump easier. As others have said, if they work, these are game changers, i.e. they will transform the world's economy. I'd imagine a device which reduced fuel consumption at a stroke by 13% could boost world GDP by 1% ignoring any further multiplier effects. These are extraordinary claims. Normally extraordinary claims should be backed with extraordinary evidence.
However, most of these devices have been hailed as a success, and then shelved, with no further news. That is an undisputed fact. The latest device, AOT, is hailed as a success. Various facts would make us believe that it is a success - it is true that there has been interest from some big oil companies. It is true some tests have taken place. But it is not true that this has lead to the next step, which I think all sense would tell us really has to be manufacturing and a sale. There really isn't much more information than this, despite the news.
Which means there is for all investors potential and actual a great sense of uncertainty. Is the AOT the device to break the mold, or is it yet another device to be shelved? To be sure, the M&A strategy does not bode well for the AOT: if the device worked the next steps would be sales, but in the Dec 1 letter to shareholders, the flagship device doesn't even get a single namecheck.
If you go on history then you will assume that the AOT is just another extraordinary claim which is destined for the trash, AND you could also reasonably infer that QSEP know about this - espcially given previous claims - and there also lies a strong liklihood that there has been deliberate deception by them. On the other hand, what if AOT is the exception to the history?
So if one is weighing up the company and its prospects at the moment I think most reasonable thought would go with what happened historically. But even this position is based on the (very reasonable) balance of probabilities rather than having posession of the full facts. The final point then is to think about why the full facts are not available and why speculation rules. You can either go to full on skepticism or full on faith and hope. The latter position prioritises your feelings and thoughts, the former the actual history, but the real position is "we don't know".
However, this question can be settled. Definitively. One entity which is definitively able to settle it is QSEP. They have the facts, this is their device and devices. If they were to tell the truth, about the MagCharger, ZEFS, Electra, what happened at TC, what happened with China, LG Partners, why the US Navy hasn't bailed them out with a massive order, why the AOT isn't in manufacturing stage, what are those SRI results it would be reasonable to have more confidence one way or another. QSEP seems indifferent to questions of this nature even put to them by shareholders, it just doens't answer them. They are very aware of investor concerns, but they do not deign to answer. This to me is what really puts it towards this being a scam operation: the uncertainty is beneficial to them. The truth can prove this is $200 a share or worthless. And there can be only one reason not to tell it.
INCORRECT. When Bigger says things they are both TRUE AND FALSE at the same time. AOT's WORK AND are in the process of being FORGOTTEN ABOUT in favour of M&A strategies ~ which as everyone knows, is where its all at right now.
RINSE AND REPEAT, Brothers, Rinse and Repeat.
I deal with "major players" every time I facebook, search google or go into a store. I *actually* transact with these people. We *do* business. Hell, even in the oil business I'm a purchaser of that petrol stuff.
QSEP doesn't do that. If they had a device which could shave off 13% of fuel costs, I am pretty sure they could say pretty much anything and still have business partners. You seem to forget what business is about. Its about making money, not keeping secrets, unless keeping secrets makes money.
I am suggesting the NDAs serve a purpose in addition to protecting their intellectual property, which is to give them a good excuse not to give out real information.
CORRECT. NDAs ARE VITAL.
This sort of thing can happen EVERY TIME YOU ARE CAUGHT OUT. STWA LEARNED FROM THIS MISTAKE:
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/34-43057.htm RELEASE NO. 43057 / July 20, 2000
"The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of STW Air because of questions that have been raised about the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information concerning, among other things, the results of demonstration tests of STW Air's Zero Emissions Fuel Saver device and STW Air's purported relationship with the Ford Motor Company."
NEVER SAY IN PUBLIC STUFF YOU CAN HINT AT WITHOUT IT BEING TRUE. AN NDA, PROPERLY DEPLOYED, MAKES IT MUCH HARDER TO SAY ANYTHING.
THIS isn't about 10 years ago, its about what they LEARNED 10 YEARS AGO
INCORRECT No 8K means no action taken. This FACTUAL 8K READS GREAT AND Shows that STWA - I mean QSEP - have taken action with THIS BILLION DOLLAR ENTERPRISE. This has NEVER BEEN withdrawn by ST.. QSEP - so IT MUST STILL BE IN PROGRESS. LIES ARE NOT ALLOWED IN 8KS. NO UPDATE MEANS IT MUST STILL BE TRUE.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1103795/000101968712000961/stwa_8kex10-1.htm
EX-10.1 2 stwa_8kex10-1.htm LETTER OF INTENT
EXHIBIT 10.1
March 2, 2012
Mr. Michael B. Leader, Managing Partner
LG Partners, LLC
RE: Letter of Intent
Dear Mr. Leader:
This letter of intent (“LOI”) is entered into by and between Save the World Air, Inc. (“STWA”) and LG Partners, LLC (“LGP”). STWA and LGP are sometimes referred to herein as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party.” The Parties enter into this LOI for the purpose of setting forth their mutual expressions of interest regarding their intent to proceed with the consideration and evaluation of transactions by which STWA would sub-license or otherwise sell or grant to LGP certain rights or products, which are based on STWA’s proprietary technology, known as Applied Oil Technology (the “AOT Technology”). This LOI supersedes and replaces in its entirety that certain “Pro Forma Agreement,” between the Parties, dated February 29, 2012.
1. Intellectual Property/Confidentiality. The Parties acknowledge and agree that STWA is the holder and owner of worldwide exclusive licenses and rights for the AOT Technology. Nothing contained in this LOI shall be deemed to transfer or assign any right, title or interest in or to the AOT Technology to LGP, it being expressly understood between the Parties that all right, title and interest in and to the AOT Technology is and shall remain at all times the exclusive intellectual property of STWA.
LGP hereby acknowledges that, during and solely as a result of this LOI, it will have access to confidential information of STWA. LGP hereby agrees as follows:
(i) Confidential Information. “Confidential Information” shall mean any information, tangible or intangible, relating to the business of STWA and its affiliated companies, and their products, finances, budgets, methods, policies, procedures, business, plans, computer or other data, techniques, research or development projects or results, customers or clients, employees, trade secrets, or other knowledge or processes of or developed by STWA and its affiliated companies, and any other confidential information relating to or dealing with the businesses of STWA and its affiliated companies, made known to LGP, or learned or acquired by LGP during the term of this LOI, but Confidential Information shall not include information lawfully known generally by or readily accessible to the trade or the general public.
(ii) Use. During the Term hereof, LGP shall use and disclose Confidential Information only for the benefit of STWA and only as necessary to carry out LGP’s obligation under this LOI. After the Term hereof, LGP shall not directly or indirectly, disclose to any person or entity, or use for the direct or indirect benefit of himself or any person or entity, any Confidential Information, without the express written permission of STWA. At no time shall LGP, directly or indirectly, remove or cause to be removed from the premises of STWA any Confidential Information (including copies, extracts and summaries thereof) except in furtherance of LGP’s performance hereunder.
Mr. Michael Leader, Managing Partner
March 2, 2012
Page 2
(iii) Proprietary Interests. LGP acknowledges and agrees that all Confidential Information, whether developed by it or others, is and will remain the sole and exclusive property of STWA. LGP further recognizes and agrees that all work performed or work product developed by it in the course of its relationship with the STWA is and shall remain the sole and exclusive property of STWA. LGP hereby assigns to STWA any rights LGP may have or acquire in such Confidential Information and agrees to sign any additional document(s) that STWA may determine is/are necessary to effectuate such assignment.
(iv) Return of Confidential Information. Upon the termination of this LOI for any reason, or at the request of STWA, LGP will promptly deliver to STWA all records, files, memoranda, documents, lists and other information containing any Confidential Information, including all copies or summaries thereof, in LGP’s possession or control, whether prepared by LGP or others. Should LGP discover such items in its possession after its separation with STWA, it agrees to return them promptly to STWA without retaining copies.
2. Expressions of Interest. It is the desire of LGP to acquire certain rights to STWA’s AOT Technology for the purpose of commercially exploiting the AOT Technology, as such technology relates to the delivery and transportation of crude oil through pipelines, in connection with LGP’s (as represented by LGP) design, development and construction of a non-domestic 900 mile oil pipeline (the “LGP Project”), also known as CECOEH. The LGP Project is subject to the satisfaction of several material conditions including, without limitation, approvals and permits of the countries in which the pipeline will be constructed and operated, and financing of approximately $2.5 billion. The Parties agree, in the foregoing regard, to enter into good faith negotiations providing for a mutually acceptable structure relating to the purchase and commercial exploitation of the AOT Technology by LGP in connection with the LGP Project, including, without limitation, terms and conditions requiring the purchase, delivery and installation of STWA’s AOT Technology at LGP’s expense, and thereafter on-going royalties and/or compensation payable to STWA based on cost savings relating to the use and exploitation of the AOT Technology in connection with the LGP Project.
3. Term. This LOI shall be effective when signed by both Parties and shall remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the date upon which it is expressly superseded by substantive definitive transaction agreements, if any, signed and delivered by both Parties, or (b) June 30, 2012.
4. Non-Binding Effect. This LOI is intended to set forth the Parties’ general intent to evaluate, discuss and negotiate in good faith a transaction for the commercial application of STWA’s AOT Technology as it relates to the delivery and transportation of crude oil in connection with the LGP Project. This LOI does not create a contract which binds either Party to a commitment to complete any particular transaction, and no Party shall have liability to the other for failure to complete any transaction contemplated by this LOI. Further, both Parties acknowledge and agree that any transaction which is jointly pursued by them is expressly conditioned upon the structuring, drafting, execution and delivery of mutually acceptable substantive definitive transaction agreements. Notwithstanding the generality of and subject to the provisions of this section 4, the provisions of this LOI as applicable shall be binding on the Parties and shall survive the termination or expiration of this LOI.
Mr. Michael Leader, Managing Partner
March 2, 2012
Page 3
5. Governing Law. This LOI shall be construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of California. All controversies, claims or disputes arising out of, in connection with, or relating to this LOI shall be finally settled by arbitration. The arbitration shall be held in Los Angeles County, California in accordance with the then current Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitration shall be conducted before one arbitrator who shall have prior experience in arbitrating commercial disputes. The arbitrator shall be selected by mutual consent of the Parties. If the Parties are unable to agree on the selection of the arbitrator within thirty (30) days, the American Arbitration Association shall select the arbitrator. In the event of a dispute arising under this LOI, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to collect attorneys’ fees and costs in addition to any other remedy, including, without limitation, injunctive relief, awarded by the arbitrator.
6. Assignment. This LOI is entered into for the benefit of the Parties, their successors and assigns. Neither Party may assign its rights hereunder without the prior written consent of the other Party.
7. Modification. This LOI shall not be amended, modified, released, discharged, abandoned or otherwise terminated prior to expiration, in whole or in part, except by written agreement signed by the Parties hereto.
8. Severability. In the event that any provision, or any portion thereof, of this LOI is determined by competent judicial, legislative, administrative or arbitrator authority to be prohibited by law, then such provision or part thereof shall be ineffective only to the extent of such prohibition, without invalidating the remaining provisions of the LOI.
9. Exclusivity. Neither Party shall, within the Term of this LOI and without express written consent of the other Party, enter into a similar LOI or agreement with any other third party with regard to the use and application of STWA’s AOT Technology in connection with the LGP Project.
10. Notices. Notices under this LOI by either party shall be in writing and will be sufficiently made or given if sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, courier or by facsimile, and shall be deemed given upon delivery by courier, five (5) days after deposit in the mail, or upon receipt of facsimile transmission. Notices shall be sent to the signatory of this LOI or an authorized officer at the address set forth in the signature blocks of this LOI or at such other addresses either Party may specify in writing.
11. Entire Agreement. This LOI contains the full and complete understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior agreements, representations and understandings, whether oral or written.
12. Costs and Expenses. The Parties confirm that each Party will be solely responsible for the costs and expenses incurred by it in connection with documentation and execution of this LOI and the transactions contemplated herein.
Mr. Michael Leader, Managing Partner
March 2, 2012
Page 4
13. Termination. Upon termination of this LOI, LGP shall immediately return to STWA all documents, materials, information or writings of any kind relating to the AOT Technology, and LGP shall have no right, title or interest in or to such technology or right to utilize such technology for any purpose, it being expressly agreed and understood between the Parties that all right, title and interest in and to the AOT Technology shall at all times remain with STWA.
14. Authority. As the case may be, each of the undersigned has been duly authorized and empowered by LGP and the Company to execute this Agreement, and the signatures of each of the undersigned is binding upon the entity for which the undersigned has executed this Agreement.
15. Counterparts. This LOI may be executed in two (2) counterparts, each of which will be deemed to be an original copy of this agreement and all of which, when taken together, will be deemed to constitute one and the same agreement. The Parties hereto may execute this LOI by facsimile delivery of manually signed copies or by the electronic delivery of copies bearing an electronic facsimile signature.
Very truly yours,
SAVE THE WORLD AIR, INC.
Dated: March 2, 2012
By:
/s/ Cecil Bond Kyte
Cecil Bond Kyte, its CEO
Address: 735 State Street, Suite 500
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
We hereby approve and agree to all the terms and conditions set forth above.
LG PARTNERS, LLC
Dated: March 2, 2012
By:
/s/ Michael B. Leader
Michael B. Leader, Managing Partner
Address: 213 Briar Vista Way
Atlanta, GA 30329
Here's yet MORE FACTUAL INFORMATION from 2012
STWA Signs Cooperation Framework Agreement Towards Commercialization in China
Week of Successful High-Level Meetings Confirms Interest in AOT™ and Moves STWA to Next Commercialization Milestone
SANTA BARBARA, CA--(Marketwire - Mar 15, 2012) - STWA, Inc. (OTCBB: ZERO) ("STWA" or the "Company"), a developer of applied solutions for oil and fuel delivery systems in the multi-billion dollar oil pipeline and diesel engine markets, today announced it has advanced its Applied Oil Technology™ (AOT™) oil pipeline efficiency technology's commercialization in China, the largest growth market for oil consumption in the world (Source: EIA.gov).
Mr. Cecil Bond Kyte, CEO of STWA, together with the Company's project team (collectively the "Project Team"), conducted a series of high-level meetings in China during the week of March 4 to 10, 2012. STWA's China partner, Beijing Heng He Xing Ye Technology Development (TDC), arranged meetings for the Project Team at the highest levels of decision making in China's oil pipeline industry. Meetings and achievements included:
1. China's Department of Oil and Natural Gas, National Energy Administration
On March 6, the Project Team accompanied by Mr. Zhao Ruilin, the General Manager (CEO) of TDC, presented AOT™ to the Department of Oil and Natural Gas, National Energy Administration's Director General, Mr. Zhang Yuqing and Deputy Division Chief, Mr. Dong Wancheng. The Department of Oil and Natural Gas is the department in charge of China's petroleum industry. Officials there were impressed with AOT™ and stated their intention to introduce the oil pipeline efficiency technology to China's petroleum vendors as a solution that can improve efficiencies and help the industry achieve the 16% reduction in energy consumption that is mandated by the government of China.
2. China Petroleum Pipeline Administration, PetroChina Pipeline R&D Centre
On March 8, the Project Team, accompanied by Mr. Zhao Ruilin, the General Manager (CEO) of TDC, met with key officials at the PetroChina Pipeline R&D Centre (the "R&D" Centre"). The R&D Centre operates under the administration of China Petroleum Pipeline Administration and is the sole authority in China that certifies all domestic and foreign products in the pipeline sector. The Project Team had extensive discussions and exchanged views with experts at the R&D Centre, who highly commended AOT™ and unanimously agreed that upon certification, they expect AOT™ will make a great contribution to oil pipeline transportation and have significant market potential in China.
3. TDC Collaboration Framework Agreement
On March 9, STWA signed a Collaboration Framework Agreement with TDC. This Collaboration Framework Agreement expands upon the previously announced Letter of Intent signed between STWA and TDC in December of 2011. This marks a major step in promoting and developing the market in China for AOT™.
STWA and TDC will work diligently towards the next milestone of carrying out the testing required for certification in China. The certification process through the China Petroleum Pipeline Administration is similar to the testing STWA has already successfully conducted with the U.S. Department of Energy.
Upon certification, AOT™ will be commercially available in China. STWA and TDC have set a pricing structure and are ready for commercial orders and delivery of systems.
STWA Chairman and CEO Cecil Bond Kyte stated, "Entering this Cooperative Framework Agreement with TDC marks a major milestone that exceeded our expectations. We would like to thank our trusted in-country partner Mr. Zhao and the TDC team for their exceptional hospitality and care for us during this important trip. We were impressed with the immediate access we had at the top levels of the oil pipeline infrastructure as well as the serious interest and collaboration we experienced with these key decision making individuals and organizations. I believe we could not possibly be better positioned in the China market."
"We are optimistic about our process and timeline to commercialize AOT™ in the fastest growing oil consuming nation in the world. Success in the China market not only has the potential to transform the value of our Company, it can also create a global impact on energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions. We believe much of the world is watching China and will adopt technologies that are successfully implemented in this key Asian market."
Here is more FACTUAL information:
Company:
16 years of R&D.
$100m spent.
No assets.
Devices:
AOT. Not one unit sold.
Elektra. Not one unit sold.
MagChargr. Not one unit sold.
News Releases. Never backed up. Never explained. Major changes never elaborated on. Device failure never admitted or even explained.
Investors: Treated as cash cows. Not given enough information. Not allowed to make fully informed decisions.
It is not gloating and the pain of losing one's investment is not fun. Many have invested what they could not really afford to lose. I am also not suggesting that anyone has been stupid, for it did require weighing up, but this could be achieved much easier if the company was actually clear rather than leaving so much to speculation, and knife-edge tension that you might miss the boat with the next device or plan. Always on the corner. Always tomorrow. Buy now or miss the boat.
Seriously, is it that hard to tell us what happened to the Elektra? Or what changed in China? Or what TC really think? What happened on the previous corners?
That alone has been enough to point out that the emperor has no clothes.
EVERYTHING from QSEP reads great! That's the point! But when you string the few facts together, its sounds like one, long, long, string-along scam.
I bet Bernie Madoff's business plan read great too! So did genuine businesses like Eastman Kodak. So did liars like Lehman Bros, Bear Stearns. Really BIG BOYS with big REGULATION issues that they still managed to avoid. But the issues is Eastman Kodak could point to 150,000 employees, factories worldwide and customers everywhere. Lehman Brothers - a Very Big Bank, if you please - lied about their balance sheet, as did Bear Stearns. All of them had great business plans. QSEP has had 16 years TO.MAKE.ONE.SALE. of devices they claim worked. They have spent $100m dollars. But no, at this stage, you're pinning your hopes on a BUSINESS PLAN?? What happened to the plan of "Sell the AOT"? The plan of "Sell it to TransCanada"? What happened to the plan of "Sell the Elektra". What on earth does a board meeting at QSEP sound like?
Chair: Shall we sell this proven device then marketing it as the Electra?
CFO: No, I think we need to get more money from warrant options first. London smells good.
Chair: OK, er, so about this new thing Tao has got - the AOT. It seems this could be the big one, its for pipelines.
CFO: Er, well I'd rather get some more warrants through first, we need more shareholders. Hawaii, anyone?
Chair: But can't we just shift a few of them, maybe somewhere harmless, like Jamaica?
CFO: Not until we've raised more money.
Chair: If we need more money we could sell some units of . ..
CFO: No.
I refer the snoop the post I gave some hours earlier on the SEC's ability to keep up with pink sheet scams. I presume that we are not going to go through the SEC's resourcing and priorities and internal culture in detail and we can agree to disagree and decide the point is, at best, moot?
Price Per share may be interesting, but at these volume levels there's nothing to indicate what the correct price would be. With a handful of trades a day, there is not enough activity to indicate anything like a fair price.
You could phone up the broker and place a sell order at 10c and not get a buyer for days. If ever. You could drop to 5c and still get no interest.
You could place a buy order at 1c and be waiting equally as long. There just isn't enough trades to tell us what the right price actually is. The only guide is the assets to the company which is (unaudited, last count):
1 million in cash
No property
No patents making money (but lets say they are worth a million anyway)
Hope of shareholders (book value, nil).
minus any liabilities. Creditors, etc etc etc.
Shares outstanding 180 million which makes the value of the company only its bank balance, if that is still there and not likely to be claimed, so I'd say anywhere between nothing and about 0.01c per share. Seriously.
Some replies
Read again: ETG has some people on its website, at least one of whom has been investigated by the police, is a newly formed company, and is based in Kenya which is not even a member of OPEC. Sure a company can be in Africa, but it should be in Nigeria, Angola, Gabon, Libya - not a place best known business-wise as a place of tourism, agriculture and foreign aid!
Right now its very evident that the company wants you to think there are major material events in the pipeline, and if you very generously interpret PR and fluff and ignore the fact that there have been major material events in the pipeline for the past 10 years without a single sale being struck, you might want to believe this. But its certainly not based on fact.
No they are not.
"Discussions" towards "positioning" themselves? "Negotiations". You could say this about an email exchange. You're being very generous to suggest this is "GREAT WORK".
The last, unaudited, statement of account says they have what a million or so left in the bank? 1% of what they've spent, a balance sheet which to all intents and purposes has to be divided between the 180,000,000 shares they've sold. Great plans, zerosnoop, but its speculation to say that this "proves" anything.
I am absolutely sure the company is aware of these message boards, some have made the effort to contact their PR company and ask questions, but still does not answer investor concerns.
As previously pointed out, the SEC has little ability and inclination and has already made a series of warnings about *any* penny stock:
"Consequently, investors in penny stocks should be prepared for the possibility that they may lose their whole investment (or an amount in excess of their investment if they purchased penny stocks on margin)."
https://www.sec.gov/answers/penny.htm
If the SEC is a serious organisation it would focusing most of its resources on regulating much bigger fish which have the potential to damage the whole economy rather than a single penny stock which has "only" burned its way through $100m.
SEC also warns about the "off shore scam" which, given we know many QSEP shares were sold outside the USA (UK, Switzerland, Africa) with warrants and options- would be a major concern:
The OffShore Scam Under a rule known as "Regulation S," companies do not have to register stock they sell outside the United States to foreign or "off-shore" investors. In the typical off-shore scam, an unscrupulous microcap company sells unregistered Reg S stock at a deep discount to fraudsters posing as foreign investors. These fraudsters then sell the stock to U.S. investors at inflated prices and share the resulting profits with company insiders. The flow of unregistered stock into the U.S. eventually causes the price to drop, leaving unsuspecting U.S. investors with losses.
https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/microcapstock.htm
Doing business with QSEP? That's a very generous interpretation which is based on speculation. Where's the sale, the sale contract? Again QSEP PR is massively open to interpretation and nothing is solid here. "Doing business" can mean in this context "spoke to someone at the office". If I examine your products for sale and ask you some questions you could interpret that as "doing business" whereas is nothing more than an inquiry.