Replies to post #11581 on QS Energy Inc (QSEP)

[poco_trabajo_mucho_dinero]

1 thing that people misunderstand about this situation is that this is a pilot test and TC are terminating the testing after 4 month instead of 6 month. this is not normal lease situation this is a pilot test to find out the real world numbers. TC ARE NOT TERMINATING THE "LEASE" but terminating the Pilot Program it self

if this was an actual "lease" or "contract" and if TC are terminating early yes it is bad but only thing TC are doing is a testing and they are terminating the testing after 4 month instead of 6 month. NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE IF TESTING WENT GOOD OR BAD!!! except for TC and STWA

early terminating for a "pilot program" vs terminating lease early
this two are totally different situation. THIS IS NOT AN ACTUAL LEASE

that's it! nothing more nothing less

[PumpersExposed]

As I have said before, the lease termination has had for effect to REALIGN (with positive wording) the end testing date to October 15th

That does not make it true.

Here is a factoid:

On sixty (60) days’ written notice prior to the expiration of the Initial Term, TransCanada has an option to extend the Lease for an additional eighty-four (84) months (the “Extended Term”).

Which means;

- If TCPL did not get it's act together by 60 days of the end of the lease, STWA could opt to remove it and lease it to another company if they so wished.

- If that 60 day end period timeframe passed, TCPL could not extend the lease as per THIS agreements terms.

SO,

What that means is not only did TCPL obviously not see enough of a value of $60,000 per month to continue leasing the device within the terms of this existing lease that would allow them to, but they terminated the lease altogether and threw away the 7 year option to extend it.

There is absolutely no reason in the world TCPL would care about date 'realignment'. This is just coincidence. They could simply extend the lease if they saw a benefit, or buy it now. Some date would not make a difference whether they have money in the budget or not at this point in time. They don't need to wait until the end of every lease for every piece of equipment to go for funds.

AS well, and more IMPORTANTLY, ordering more AOT's would not necessitate terminating this lease. The lease is for THAT ONE AOT specified by serial number, and not for any future ones which could ALREADY be independently negotiated. Even if that was not true, could TCPL not strong-arm little STWA at this point, agreement or not, and have STWA not say "yes sir!"?



And mods, please remove the top sticky. The RMOTC reports CLEARLY show as I have pointed out ONLY a baseline with the AOT installed in line. There are no numbers ANYWHERE published of a proper baseline with the line prior to the AOT installed. And even if there were, since they do not show up in the RMOTC testing reports, they would be irrelevant. This sticky is completely false and has been proven repeatedly so.

Even though it is irrelevant to the results, it is claimed a baseline was set in an NR on March 24th 2011. However, in an NR on June 20, 2011, 3 MONTHS LATER, STWA states:

STWA Provides Operations Briefing on Build-Out of RMOTC Facility
The RMOTC facility required substantial retrofitting that included construction, electrical and industrial engineering and permitting. This has resulted in hundreds of man-hours to bring the facility up to the required parameters for testing the prototype. STWA is now pleased to announce that after the various delays associated with poor weather conditions and third-party lead time interruptions, the facility build-out, although behind schedule, is set for prototype testing and is proceeding normally at this time.

Which CLEARLY points out the facility was not even ready yet in April.