RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Bernard seems very confident, what is he keeping back??LeMarcus wrote: LeMarcus wrote: stocknews101 wrote: Napoleon001 wrote: Got the same feeling...Bernard has no poker face...he's sitting there with a royal flush acting like he needs to draw 3 cards...read the body language...it's already gameover...imo but I have the position to back it up. cheers, Nap
This is it.... he could not control his excitement. He had mentioned this is a opportunity that he hasn't seen come around in many years
He has to contain this excitement until the pliot plant reproduce the lab scale results.
Only then, his "game over" conclusions will be relatively hard to challenge!
That will be a long waiting... but this is just a few months away! PYR computer models were less optimistic than the "mother nature" reaction to the Plasma Tech! So, we have to guess their modelling isn't going to fail at bigger scale. PYR have processes for several tons per day... in various areas. Their PureVap pilot plant is 200tons... compares to Drosrite plus at 6000MT/y capacity. I guess they know their way around!
Also, note that the original plan was 200t/y pilot then 2000t/y first commercial plant and then 10kt/y plant! For a couple of months, Bernard has been saying... we might just go directly to the 10kt/y plant; all depends on market/financing condition, as the objective is to maximize Shareholder value. Then 2000kt/y plant could generate enough revenue to finance the 10kt/y plan... but going directly to 10kt/y would give a really stronger NAV to the project. Question is the trade off in dilution versus cashflows.
Even if ressource delineates 5M tons of 97.5% +(cut off) silica... the PEA will use only the feed that can be transform with the PureVap... and that will be limited by "capacity of building the plants". And so far, they only manufacturer of the plan is PYR. And regulators are not likely to accept a PEA with capacity exceding what PYR could build in the short term...
If you start with 2000t/y and generate 10M revenue (5$ profit/kg CAD) and need 7 years to ramp up to 20kt/y... your NAV is quite less important that starting with 10kt/y revenue and 50M revenue and 4 years to build 20kt/y capacity. Processing capacity is key to the NAV of the project... not the resource... as the silica can be easily purchased at a reasonnable price. The added value is in the processing... mainly. Vertical integration is great, but not requiried.
In any case, planning to skip the 2000ton Gen 3 and go to 10kt/y directly... is another bullish sign. But the real deal is scaling this up. After that(if), it's game over... trading like cure for cancer!
True, but that assumes HPQ would not licence the tech to multiple companies with a supply agreement from them.