Replies to post #3632 on QS Energy Inc (QSEP)

[mentalFLOSS]

I agree.

I have been reading the back and forth on this board for sometime. As I see it, both the pro STWA and con STWA forces have at times grossly overstated their cases. I am long, but with the caveat that I understand this is far from a proven venture.

Today I'm going to question some of Pumper's arguments.

http://www.newtechmagazine.com/index.php/daily-news/archived-news/8845-stwa-tests-aot-technology-with-pipeline-research-council-international

"PRCI and STWA are entering into a contract to co-fund the field testing at the U.S. Department of Energy's Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center," stated Michael P. Whelan, PRCI's director of Facilities Programs at PRCI.

"Our members have identified the AOT as having potentially significant impact, and STWA has been successful in bringing together a set of project participants that we feel will allow a rigorous evaluation of this technology." He added, "The project team of STWA, Colfax Corporation and the PRCI member oil pipeline representatives has established a final site design and actionable test plan, enabling a go-ahead for work at the DOE facility."

This statement by Michael P. Whalan, PRCI's director of Facilities Programs directly contradicts Pumper's assertion that "no funding other than STWA" took place at the DOE testing. PRCI didn't just co-fund the first test but all three. In fact, the co-funding is mentioned in the body of the DOE report.

Mr. Whalen also would seem to take the wind out of Pumper's sails by expressing confidence in the testing plan, design, and people involved (including some of his own). Pumper has repeatedly claimed "- DOE didn't run any tests. STWA rented the facility just like anyone could, and self performed the test. The DOE simply signed off on the results, not on how results were achieved." I don't know how he can claim this.... he wasn't there. I can't claim the opposite because I wasn't there. However, it would seem to be counter intuitive for the DOE engineers to write their own report and sign their own names and reputations to a report that they had little or nothing to do with. Pumper would also have us believe that while DOE was rubber stamping their report, PRCI and Colfax Corp. pulled a Sargent Shultz while Dr. Tao falsified all of the results for a test they helped design.

Many of Pumper's arguments center around his thesis that STWA has not had any support from the industry. That is clearly inaccurate. While I hate to "connect the dots" (I prefer hard facts), when Cecil says they have been working with both industry and supply chain members it is not hard to believe that statement. AOT 2.0 is not likely just an STWA concoction.

Pumper and Sano believe STWA is a scam. They may be right. If you make that assumption many of their arguments will ring true. If on the other hand, you think STWA is the kind of company that should be inside someone's venture capital fund, but somehow found itself in the penny stock world then you will see things quite differently.

[Slyder009]

Where is the Attorney Genereal when you need somone to leak some real information.

[mr_sano]

Pumper and Sano believe STWA is a scam. They may be right. If you make that assumption many of their arguments will ring true. If on the other hand, you think STWA is the kind of company that should be inside someone's venture capital fund, but somehow found itself in the penny stock world then you will see things quite differently.

Given the companies history including current management statements about profitability as early as 2009, you can;t really argue that the company has not lived up to its promises even with a NEW CEO. Seriously current management has done nothing but spend money hand over fist and switch the direction of the companies products 180 degrees from the relatively easy entry truck and auto after markets to a high pressure pipeline transport. Whether its a scam o not really is not the question. That just a matter of whether they are intentionally misrepresenting the facts. I can;t tell you that for sure. They can always say we were mistaken or the product works but they just couldn't get any sales...yeah right.

Your point about the venture firms rings true. The reason a venture fund hasn't got involved here is because they likely have looked at the company closely and determined it would not generate enough revenues to warrant the risk. If AOT could achieve 30% of what is claimed they would be in with both feet.