RE:RE:RE:RE:CommunicationThe size of the contract is NOT known and has never been known. Folk here were assuming full conversion based on assumed number of plants and torches per plant. Nothing is in the bag yet. It could be nothing, it could be torches in one plant, it could be a few torches in a few plants, or over time, it could be full conversion. I don't know what modelling means. To me it means simulation. If "real life" performance meets all expectations (GHG AND cost reduction), I would then expect full conversion by a company....over time which I would measure in years, not months.
SmiteWorx wrote: The only problem is, the biggest size of the contract seems to be already known...I think it was estimated around 500 torches if the customer was one of two or three key players. No, I cant believe the customer hasnt known since for a long time what plants they are going to put the torches in and when.
MidtownGuy wrote: Just a theory, but there's something you may have all overlooked:
Client and PYR were talking. Went to draft contract negotiations. During this period, client decides they want a much bigger order than even imagined. Client proposed they would do it if different payment options existed, so brought up leasing. Leasing is then on the table, when it wasn't initially.
If that is the case, then you can see how it was an organic development as a result of negotiations, not something that was being withheld from the get go.
SmiteWorx wrote: The alternative is that leasing has been on the table for a very long time, and that key information has been withheld from stockholders for several months or more. Just speculation of course. .
canyousayiii wrote: I would summarize that there is a communication issue. Peter is talking terms that many of us are not properly interpreting. For example, I don't know how you can have a draft contract in place in September that you are trying to finalize but then shift from sales to lease. That change in the business proposition is huge in terms of contract terms so I don't see how it could result in a tweaking of what has been drafted. In my view, the "contract" in September was not as advanced as some of us may have interpreted it and the business structure was still being negotiated. Now we have to wait to see what the actual deal will be, and yet again, we have the "hell of a lot more money" that was tossed out there. Make sure your starting point is not Uncleron's for interpreting what this means!