STW Resources Holding Corp. (fka STWSQ)

[Penny Nickel Dine]

Arsenic in Texas water!!!

Ludlow Research Sees Texas Arsenic Water Scandal as Bullish Catalyst for STWS

Last Updated: March 17, 2016

(NEW YORK)--Ludlow Research maintains its coverage on STW Resources Holding Corp, (OTCQB: STWS), an integrated water reclamation and remediation company, with a 'speculative' target of $0.40+ per share as news of arsenic contamination in Texas water supply grows.

After analyzing more than a decade worth of data, an environmental watchdog group reported Monday that it found levels of arsenic in drinking water in 65 rural Texas communities exceeding the actionable threshold set by the federal government.

State health officials advised communities that the water is safe to drink, says the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project in a report. The report authors liken the situation to the ongoing water crisis in Flint, Mich., and is calling on the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to intervene.

This growing scandal of arsenic in Texas drinking water coming on the heels of what happened in Flint, Michigan could provide a renewed focus on STWS and their technology for clean and reliable drinking water.

Horizon City, Texas Water Project

In Sept. 2015, the Company announced they had completed their contract for the custom design, engineering and construction of the Horizon City Municipal Utility District Reverse Osmosis (RO) Concentrator. STW Water, a wholly-owned subsidiary of STW Resources, was selected as the manufacturer/technology integrator for the $2.2 million project and will maintain the system under a contract with Horizon City.
The existing municipal reverse osmosis plant in Horizon City is 13 years old and could produce only 7 to 9 million gallons per day of processed water. According to the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the facility discharged approximately 1 million gallons per day of brine water unsuitable for human consumption which was directed to existing evaporation ponds. Because these ponds didn't evaporate at the anticipated rate, there was a need for more ponds—an option that was not economically attractive due to land costs.
http://www.wallstreetnewscast.com/profile/stws.html