RE:To reduce or not to reduce your carbon tax billI do my best to be civil and fair. So if I misquoted you about 1 to 2 torch deals, let me make sure i correct that. October post before the first 1 torch deal announcement. Would you like the discussion where I said no company would cut a billion dollar check for the first order which would amount to 300 torches, but rather start with one plant or less....that you made me your "project girl"? Give it up Ghostman, you are wasting space. Integrity isnsomething you dont understand so you should not be passing judgment on things like fraud. I own PYR shares bought at higher levels, and I own an opinion that is not based on fear or delusion that it will affect the value of my investment.
Casavantsghost wrote: This is why this 1 or 2 torch fake news item on this board is laughable.
Currently, company's across the globe are paying or about to be paying money for carbon taxes.
For the iron ore pelletization industry, along comes a now model proven technology that can allow you to keep more profits in your pocket for up front capital expendatures that will ultimately pay for themselves at a juncture curve. It isn't rocket science.
When the capital expense to carbon tax ratio is zeroed out, additional return to shareholder ensues as well as encourages further investment into a company
If you build it, they will come. So Governments put an onerous tax on corporations and private industry comes up with a innovative solution. This is the beauty of capitalism.
Induration companies A,B and C are interested in return to shareholder.., the modeling is over.. it works. Give me the product as I don't want to pay my Government another dime for carbon taxes.
Those advocating a 1 or 2 torch deal are two sandwiches short of a picnic.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/02/climate/pricing-carbon-emissions.html