% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AEGR) Message Board

matt.berry01 3 posts  |  Last Activity: Oct 7, 2015 11:23 AM Member since: Jan 5, 2011
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    CLIR Short Borrow Rate 39.12%

    by disruptivedoggiedog Oct 7, 2015 10:48 AM
    matt.berry01 matt.berry01 Oct 7, 2015 11:23 AM Flag

    What "validation"? Aera as of Sept. 2015 stated it has not conducted official tests with Clearsign. Why not?

    Look up "Global Green Solutions" +Contract+ Aera Energy ... Were they validated too?

    "Greensteam entered into a Program Agreement with Aera Energy LLC (“Aera”), an oil and gas company on March 31, 2008 and a First Amendment to the Program Agreement, effective November 6, 2008. (the “Amendment”). The Program Agreement provides for a demonstration unit which will use Greensteam’s waste-to-steam technology to burn waste biomass to create steam, to be built in an Aera oilfield. Upon successful operation of the demonstration unit, the Program Agreement provides that up to ten commercial scale units could be built. Each of these units will consume about 75 thousand tons of biomass per year and generating 80 MMBTU per hour. Aera will use the steam in its enhanced oil recovery operations, shutting down an equivalent amount of natural gas fired steam generation capability."

    They trade for less than a penny now.

    Clearsign needs to test its tech by reputable third party.

  • Aera has only kept the usual logs as required by regulators. It states in a letter Sept 10 2015 that it has not completed official testing. Why not? How is CLIR's tech "validated"?

  • For those who haven't been following the Clearsign saga, you will want to read Lou Basenese's piece on Seeking Alpha: "Clearsign Combustion: California Regulator Poised To Deliver A $156 Million Sales Windfall?" This, and PR on the Aera Energy project, have been moving the stock price.

    Basenese: "Proposed mandates would require installation of CLIR’s Duplex on every new OTSG and on every existing OTSG within five years in Kern County, California. Based on the current installed base of 782 OTSGs, we’re talking about more than $150 million in sales."

    Actually, Clearsign was never on the proposal to begin with. It was mentioned as an alternative to the proposal. If the proposal passed as originally written Clearsign would have been left out. No matter – “Duplex” tech has now been rejected even as an alternative because it is “neither technologically nor economically feasible.”

    A Kern County meeting "to receive comments" will be held today at 5:00 PM. However a "Staff Report" was already published last Thursday. (At least, that's when I found it.) Clearsign has already been rejected due to technological and commercial infeasibility.

1.55+0.11(+7.64%)Jul 27 4:00 PMEDT