Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
  • TransCanada Tries A New Clean-Tech Pipeline Solution  [View article]
    Dividend, it's debating a company that supposedly is involved in an industry I happen to work in. Laughably, none of you supporters can counter a single part of it. Ironically I don't see any "real discussion" from yourself.. or did I miss that somewhere? I seem to think I have posed a lot of information and questions for you to pick from.. but you chose none to debate.. why is that? Why do you bother discussing on the "pro" side? Are you trying to get people to buy the stock? Using your logic, perhaps you should sit back,, be silent, and be happy with your "investment".
    Apr 16, 2014. 01:06 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • TransCanada Tries A New Clean-Tech Pipeline Solution  [View article]
    Just as many fluff articles put out to prop up a sagging stock price or sell warrants.. gonna complain about those as well?
    Apr 16, 2014. 01:00 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • TransCanada Tries A New Clean-Tech Pipeline Solution  [View article]
    Apr 16, 2014. 12:59 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • TransCanada Tries A New Clean-Tech Pipeline Solution  [View article]
    Thanks for the civil back and forth.
    One last thing, because you mentioned that TCPL would be valuable, and it certainly would be.. but why would this company give away the rights to Africa to a hastily set up company, Energy Tech Africa, run by a guy with NO experience in the field, who only sold warrants for STWA? What does this say about the attitude of STWA towards sales possibilities to do that, VS going to an actual established energy equipment distributor in the region? It's funny when they announced this deal with Nimmo, that they didn't even disclose that he did this for them.. and only in later NR's, QR's do they have a small blurb like "who has worked for STWA in the past".
    Apr 15, 2014. 11:30 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • TransCanada Tries A New Clean-Tech Pipeline Solution  [View article]
    You are missing the point.. sure it was a different application, but they made the same sort of claims for those applications and NONE of them turned out very well obviously with zero sales did they? Not only were they making similar claims, but the scientific community was basically ridiculing the results, the testing.. everything... yet they continued to make the claims, while at the same time never publishing enough so someone else could validate their "tech". You MIGHT have a point if they simply went the fuel route, kept their mouths shut and kept on with R&D, but they didn't.. did they? They made claims, made claims of contracts, said they were in sale mode.. and did nothing.. all the while selling stock and warrants based on those claims. It's all inexcusable.. And laughably, Bjorn, the guy doing this talk, was also around during the Elektra days.. did he believe in that as well? if so where is it? If it was a dud, then why did he stick around? Quite simply you fell no need to continue, because there is no excuse or answer for the companies history. I've been trying to debate the faithful for over a year, and not a single person can defend this thing in any way other than... 'but that was then, this is now'.
    Apr 15, 2014. 11:19 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • TransCanada Tries A New Clean-Tech Pipeline Solution  [View article]
    Past is the past.. just look away folks.. nothing to see there. The fact that Tao was around through the entire sordid past post SEC halt means nothing.. The fact all other devices didn't sell means nothing.. the fact Tao/stwa made similar claims on every one of those means nothing.. the fact that these devices were promoted with fake 'deals' and claims to sell more warrants means nothing.. the fact the entire history of the company is pretty well false claims to sell warrants and pay gravy without a single explanation when a device or 'deal' goes south means nothing... this time it's different.. honestly guys.. this time it's different..
    Apr 14, 2014. 11:19 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • TransCanada Tries A New Clean-Tech Pipeline Solution  [View article]
    I'm simply offering up metaphors to make my point. But if not, if this is protected under patent, have they not released EVER any information so these results and tests could be duplicated? Fact is, if TCPL just took this fully at their word, and believed in it completely, that there would be not testing, but a purchase. Knowing what is inside makes no difference. If you open up your cellphone, by seeing inside could you determine that it works, or that what is being told to you is true or false because you have simply looked inside? Let me make this clearer for you, since you don't seem to understand simple scientific procedures. Lets say the line at RMOTC flowed XX speed with YY backpressure, and lets assume for a minute that Tao's magic pipe works. But lets also assume that because there is this mesh inside, that when they insert this thing in the line, it will create DRAG. It will lower the flow rate, and increase the back pressure. Does that not make sense? If you put something inside of a tube that it will cause more drag? Now could you not STILL show an increase in flow, and a lowering of pressure, but STILL be above the original XX and YY if you never showed what the BASELINE was for the line before you put it in? The testing was a complete joke.. but feel free to ignore the PRCI and Michael Whelan who actually did this testing.. just close your eyes and assume TCPL knows a lot more than they do. Interesting you pose those questions but don't have anything back for any of my replies? Says a lot when you just try to focus on the present and keep peoples eyes off the past.

    As to faking results, I'll ask you again.. why did NONE of the previous 7 devices sell when they all had magical claims to each of them? Why not? I gave you easy to click on links to their old websites. You can look at their NR's from the past on all these fake contracts and deals that never panned out.

    **I would really like to hear from you how you explain that?**

    Where are all these devices? I'm sure for each one of them, there was an article written on how it must work, because they have a signed contract with XYZ company... laughable.

    I will leave with a quote from Guilder on Tao:

    "In an archival journal paper in the field of energy and fuels,
    the author(s) should give sufficient details, so that a competent
    worker could repeat the experiments. If the method is new and
    unpublished, all of the needed details must be provided, but if
    the method has been previously published in a standard journal,
    then the literature reference should be given. Questions such
    as “why”, “how”, and “how much” should be precisely answered
    by the author(s) and not left for the reader to puzzle over."

    ..yet this is precisely what STWA does every time.
    Apr 14, 2014. 11:14 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • TransCanada Tries A New Clean-Tech Pipeline Solution  [View article]
    There isn't "my version" of their history.. history is history. But you make my point.. you should have looked deeper into that. To say you wrote an article on this company, but "simply don't have the time or interest" says quite a bit.
    TCPL has not conducted any tests.. that's what they are doing now. They did not 'co-develop' the tech.. where are you getting this stuff? "put the device in an active line".. well if by 'active' you mean in most probability a bypass OFF OF the main line, then you might be correct. And 'paid a lot of money' is relative. FOr the last 3 months ended December 31, TCPL had revenue of $2.332 billion, net income of $477 million. I'll leave it to you to work out what percentage of that $180k is over the three months.
    AS to the KM conference.. again, as I have said before, look back in the history of NR's and see how many of these conferences they/Tao have spoken at. See what good it did them in the past as it pertains to legitimacy or sales. So if you have read nothing, how do you know the present CEO has nothing to do with the companies history? Do you know how long he has been involved? Do you think the company washes it's hands of anything it had done under Cecil just because he is gone? If the GM ceo stepped down right now, would their present issues just be washed away because of that? This is just a red herring thrown out by yourself. Fact is the CEO means nothing.. what about the tech and the devices.. is that not more important? FACT IS, Tao has been involved in EVERY one of the past devices. Even the first laughable one if you consider they just renamed it with him. FACT IS, this is the same "tech" used in all of the past 7 devices for the most part. That to me is a bit more important.
    Apr 14, 2014. 10:54 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • TransCanada Tries A New Clean-Tech Pipeline Solution  [View article]
    I put the address for the waybackmachine incorrect.. here is a tiny url to stwa search on it:

    Here is one:
    from 2010.. already promoting the AOT even though they have no testing on it to make such claims. Of interest and of note is "By aligning these long chain polymers together, AOT™ reduces the viscosity of the oil, and the turbulent eddies within the pipeline, thereby reducing drag.".. Funny now it is clumping together.. isn't it?
    "creating a brief anode and cathode array which forces any long chain polymers within the oil to align with the field direction." So like logs in a stream, why would these stay aligned for any length of time? Also take note of the MagCharger still being promoted, and as a device that was invented by the guy in Australia.. Jeffrey Muller? Basically it sounds like it is STILL the ZEFs device re-named. What a company.. brimming with integrity!
    Elektra... temple mentioned as often as possible again.. wow.. with those claims these things surely must have made STWA millions right? Anyways.. feel free to look around and have a laugh.
    Apr 12, 2014. 02:40 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • TransCanada Tries A New Clean-Tech Pipeline Solution  [View article]
    I Will also leave for you some more research. Erin worked with SEMA on that failed MagChargr as I show in that link. 2 Of the board members/management of STWA presently are or were with SEMA. Why doesn't anyone ask them why they didn't move any of these devices? Ask them why they didn't try, or where the devices are? Nathan Sheldon was with SEMA, and was/is in charge of sales.. wouldn't it make sense to question the guy on all these last devices? What is he being paid for as he still presently is with STWA? Doesn't that bit of history have a bit of relevance to the present?
    Apr 12, 2014. 02:26 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • TransCanada Tries A New Clean-Tech Pipeline Solution  [View article]
    1) You honestly don't think history is a good indicator of the future? The fact is, regardless of the application, STWA has made fantastical claims for every device.. made claims they are gonna sell millions.. made claims there is massive interest.. made claims of deals that are non-existent. So the question is, is Tao a good source for present claims based on the past ones?

    2) Because you make the insinuation that having patents protects them on this device. To date, no-one can show how many patents they have pertaining to the AOT. Why? Well in the QR's the company just states a blanket number of patents they have. But the fact is another thing ignored in the article, is they have been around for 16 years with 7 other devices.. I think it is pretty relevant which now pertain to the AOT considering they have dumped the Elektra and every other device. If you go back into historical filings during the ZEFs era, you will see STWA listed patents by number and by country for the device. Why did they stop doing that? Count how many are for the ZEFs alone, then see how many patents they claim to have now.. doesn't make it very many. It's much easier to be murky and not clear at all on claims like this to allow 'investors' to assume. If you read Guilders critique (I HIGHLY suggest everyone read it and his comments), you will see basically the same comment regarding Taos work and procedures. One has to wonder why this sort of deception is so pervasive with STWA.
    3) Well, you are not thinking of the history of this. First, and NDA brought by STWA allows them to keep the lid on everything that happens.. especially if it is bad. What happened to Japan? What happened to China? Why isn't anyone asking those questions at the AGM's? To use your same mode of thought, why wouldn't they want to SHOUT that that all was successful? Fact is, TCPL got out by the filing regardless didn't it? And finally, you have to ask how this company raises money to survive. Most companies would raise the money privately, so yes it would make sense to be able to talk about TCPL.. however this company makes it's tens of millions it spends by warrants.. warrants blown out at under $0.30. So how do you sell these? Through meetings set up in England, or through salesmen like Tim Nimmo. In that case, it doesn't matter because the people buying are being told to their faces. Many of these people knew of TCPL prior to the deal even being signed.
    4) You and I agree. FINALLY someone other than STWA is running the testing. But getting back to the NDA, if it goes south no-one will ever know. It will simply be passed over to the next thing with not a peep, like it always has. Do you know in the last couple years Tao was pumping this application to thin blood? No I'm not kidding.
    5) Well Michael Whelan agreed with me questioning why there wasn't a baseline.. so obviously that is of importance. He also said the results basically didn't show enough to warrant further testing.. the PRCI board decided that. So to claim it was a raging success is incorrect. Tao also had 'tests' and results for the ZEFs, MagChargr, Elektra..etc..etc.. Why didn't those sell? Wouldn't a device that he says gets you 20% better economy be a raging success? Again, read the Guilder paper to see what others think of Taos 'results' and especially, his testing methods (both articles I posted). So I ask you, if it works, why not put it in and turn it on, and compare to a baseline of the line without the device installed? Why, according to my call was it pulled out repeatedly, moved around, changed to where the testing was done? If you don't know what is inside the device or cannot reproduce it, how do you know how the results were attained? If I have a box, and I hook a lightbulb up to it, does that mean my claim of cold fusion in a box is real? Or simply that I have a car battery inside? STWA set their baseline as WITH the AOT installed in the line.. the results of changes were then after it was turned on.. why did they do that? This is incredibly basic scientific procedure they ignored... why? If I put a tap in a waterline turned off half way, the flow would be xx. If I turned the tap on, the flow might be 2xx. Does that make my tap a magical device that allows water to flow faster? STWA could have done this right so there would be no questions.. but they didn't.. so either they are incompetent and investors should be enraged at them blowing tens after tens of millions of dollars on their way to 100 million blown on devices that never pan out, or they have a reason to do it.. I don't see a third choice.. do you?
    6) It would never be installed in the line directly. It will be in a bypass to shut off and isolate the unit if anything went wrong. They would NEVER take the risk of the entire line going down on anything. In your pictures I don't see any line going in or out there yet. Cushing would make sense since it all breaks off to refineries, so there would be multiple areas to tap in. I have numerous friends who work for TCPL here in Calgary, and myself have been involved in the construction of numerous lines. The average cost now is $2-4 million per Km to build. $60k/month is pocket change. Like any big organization, departments have budgets, and they spend it. But I still agree this is great, because it will finally put this to rest.. until the new blood device comes out.
    7) Lines have a certain rating.. if this lowered the pressure needed, companies would simply up the pressure to the rating to move more oil.
    8) Fair enough, but the history does warrant looking at. Here is some promotion:
    Erin Brokovitch! Must work right! unfortunately she has never responded to questions.
    Cecil stating the Elektra was gonna make the company profitable..
    Shouldn't investors that bought in then be enraged? There were the same people thinking the way you are now back then.
    SEC from the original halt:
    You were the one who dismissed the previous Infitialis write-up as a "hit piece". There is a lot out there. But I would suggest you go to the STWA website and read the NR's from oldest to newest. Go to the waybackmachine dot com and search older versions of the STWA website and see how they promoted previous devices. THAT will be an eye opener if you think they are a 'startup'.
    9) Well it should be of interest. Because everything else had the same claims, and went on to do nothing while the company blew millions of investors funds. But feel free to dump your money into it. Since Cecil has left, the stock has continually trended downward.. none of this 'mysterious' support it had holding it up to ridiculous valuations for a company with ZERO sales. But hey.. sure made the warrant sales easy when they could be offered up at 1/4 the street price. Heck with TCPL making money.. how about that Energy Tech Africa?
    Apr 12, 2014. 02:18 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • TransCanada Tries A New Clean-Tech Pipeline Solution  [View article]
    There is no 'know better'. Quite simply no-one knows, and this is simply further testing, and is stated as so.
    What I have issue with, is you have completely ignored the past history of the company and presented this as a startup with some new technology... 'technology' (and I use the term loosely) that has been known for north of 50 years.. I think it is important for anyone looking at this to understand they have a LONG history of failed devices based on this and questionable methods of promoting every one of them to continue to sell warrants to keep the gravy train afloat. Is the AOT gonna be different? Why would it be? THAT would be a good thesis to see.
    Apr 12, 2014. 01:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • TransCanada Tries A New Clean-Tech Pipeline Solution  [View article]
    Where did you see 9?
    Apr 11, 2014. 04:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • TransCanada Tries A New Clean-Tech Pipeline Solution  [View article]
    Lots of first-time posters.. welcome over from iHub and RB boys.. someone put up a posting to come here and fluff this thing up? Really anything new here than the fluff iHub homepage?

    60 grand a month.. woooWeeee! Too bad that won't cover the monthly gravy train costs at headquarters. Maybe the author should have mentioned the newly authorized shares @50% dilution when exercised. "if" and "option" are probably 2 terms you should look up since most of you guys confuse those with "sure thing".
    Apr 11, 2014. 04:24 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • TransCanada Tries A New Clean-Tech Pipeline Solution  [View article]
    "I can't think of a better investment at the current share price!"

    Are you short?
    Apr 11, 2014. 04:21 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment