RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:I find it.. Yes, but in light of the fact that when you have an electric option that (due to physics) can't emit CO2 because it's electric, the fact that every day your fuel based torches continue to emit CO2, and the fact that taxes on the carbon that is emitted won't change I'm left with the stark realization that quibbling over optimizing the positioning and temperatures that these electric puppies dry iron balls is literally costing you money. The reason the contract is taking time is because the size of the contract necessitates it - Peter has stated that they are discussing the exact circumstances and arrangements of maintenance personnel's travel for installation and subsequent repairs that may be necessary. Everything else has been proven. The pudding has already been served.
Mcdingle is calling the companies Peter is working with slow moving, but I would call them slow in the head for any p$ssyfooting around an outright swap as quickly as possible - the sums being discussed pale in comparison to the tax savings gained by switching to the green option. They quite literally pay for the torch costs and then some outright.
Welderkev1 wrote:
yes but until they're actually there running them they can't know whether or not they can be improved upon as peter said in the Q&A video "can we use a few less screws"...
FullMonty22 wrote:
Torch is a torch - they have the base premise down and the expertise to make them to exact specifications requested. Sweden proves it. Everything else is just business operations. This is what the company does now - massive contract on the way. Even if they have more FAT processes to run, it will be integrated to the overall project design as a milestone.
Welderkev1 wrote:
That's why peter would rather have a small order to start so his team can run the torches and optimize them and possibly determine how they can be improved because the actual torches haven't been run other than in Sweden
Welderkev1 wrote:
I think modelling is all done by computer program just input the perameters and the computer runs simulations
FullMonty22 wrote:
I think I recall seeing revenue in the Q2 financials that was recieved for the modelling service that PYR provided to the company.
if anyone can look that up it would provide a snapshot shot of a relative cost to torch orders. If they are spending a significant propotion of $$ relative to the cost of single torch I think that would indicate how large the torch order might be.
if the cost of a single torch is approx 3 mil usd and the pay x$ for modelling what would the reasonable size of the order be to offset the initial r&d cost for the iron ore company? Thinking it would be relatively insignificant to the overall size of the contract let alone the overall budget of said company
Nosleep wrote: Very difficult to believe that any company going through all the modelling etc would do anything less than one complete unit, which according to Peter, is about 50 torches.
these are enormous companies, and Peter is unlikely to be so cautious and conservative, nor spend months modelling and negotiating over two torches?
Two torches to a client wouldn't even be material to this company's market cap anymore, so I simply find it hard to believe that Peter would be so careful and so much effort would go into negotiations over 1-2 torches. No way.
Not only all of the above, but he has now outright told us that.
McWhirters comments came across as someone who was long out of date.