Mr Sano, It is true that the US Department of Energy Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Centre loop could only handle 200 gallons a minute while the new AOT midstream device is designed to handle 5,000 gm. It was clearly necessary to scale up the program. Whether this could be achieved only on a commercially productive pipeline or whether another test facility existed on which they could have installed a single AOT midstream unit I don't know.
I think it is reasonable to believe, however, that TransCanada must have looked at the data from the 200 gm test at the DOE facility and seen no reason why a 5,000 gm device would not produce comparable results, and hence similar cost benefits. They presumably concluded that if the technology could be scaled up from a test tube at Temple University's physics laboratory to a six inch pipeline at the RMOTC, there was no reason why it would not scale up further to four AOT midstream devices collectively pumping 20,000 gallons a minute on the 36 inch Keystone Pipeline.
That, in my opinion, is why they were prepared to put in the time, resources and money to run the pilot program. If they had been presented with less substantial evidence I very much doubt they would have done so.
Your assertion that this might just be an environmental publicity stunt is belied by the fact that neither STWA nor TransCanada have publicised this program beyond the obligatory 8K. Of course, I have no doubt that if or when it is successful, as they clearly hope or believe it will be, they will trumpet their environmental credentials to the heavens, but to suggest that the program itself is a publicity gambit is obviously not true.
With regard to Cecil's announcement in 2009 I am not in a position to judge his motivation, although, personally, I do not think it was either cynical or dishonest; he has certainly not sold any of his own shares. What I do know is that since he focused STWA's efforts on AOT around the same time, he has made all the right moves. There has been a logical progression from laboratory testing, to prototype design and development, to field testing, to commercial design and development, to the current pilot program on a productive pipeline. Some people may have bailed during this period, but as far as I can see most have stayed the course. And for those who have kept the faith, it would appear that they are about to be richly rewarded.
I honestly don't know why you are so consistently negative Mr Sano. You are clearly not stupid so something else must be at play and there are a limited number of possibilities. In fact, there are only two I can think of. Either you are intent on driving the price down in the pursuit of a short term profit, as I suggested in my last post. Or you have some kind of nihilistic bent, which makes you look at even the most optimistic news from a worst case scenario.
In either case, it is not hard to see why you meet with so much opposition from other members of this board, almost all of whom have invested their own money in a company they believe in. Although the tide is rapidly turning and they have, in my opinion, little to fear in the future, they clearly take it personally when they see their investment threatened by what I would imagine they perceive as malicious propoganda; from someone who has not put his own money where his mouth is. Unless, of course, you have been less than truthful and you are betting on the price going down.
If I was in your shoes and I was in receipt of the news about TransCanada I would say something like this: 'I have had my misgivings about STWA in the past but this is an extremely positive step and perhaps I was mistaken. Let's hope I was'.
Instead you are as determined to pour cold water over this event as you were to make the most dire and, as it turns out, competely inaccurate predictions in the past. Which is why I am inclined to believe you are either out to make a cynical profit or you have an emotional screw loose. What other explanation is there? Why else would you put so much energy into defaming a company you don't believe in?
That, in any event, is my opinion. I would be interested to know what everyone else thinks.
AI
