RE:RE:Once Again, See The Canada Growth Fund And Know . . .Just in case I need to specificy with respect to NanoXplore's 50% co-owned VoltaXplore enterprise being "the only remaining Canadian based manufacturer of battery cells standing", I will say that the VoltaXplore 1MWh capacity proven, validated qualified and certified battery cells manufacturing facility is the only graphene enhanced battery materials comprised battery cells manufacturing entity which was founded within, is clearly based within Canada and is outright owned by NanoXplore Inc and Martinrea International Inc., two "clearly Canadian" based corporations.
You asked "how does this Voltaxplore battery stack up against the international alternatives? performance wise? price wise? etc"
Although the complete end to end per cell unit "costs to production" for each and every graphene enhanced battery cell produced by VoltaXplore is not publicly available information and most likely wouldn't ever be publicly available information, Mr. Soroush Nazarpour is said to have suggested that the graphene-silicone enhanced anode battery materials which NanoXplore will be initially producing approximately 100 tpa of during 2023 and can conceivably produce up to 200 tpa of going forward (see the milling equipment purchase from XG Sciences creditors), would be produced and sold at a cost of $10.00 per kg.
Given such a $10.00 per kg cost, we should also understand that typically the anode component of the battery cell typically cost less than the cathode component to a battery cell (although, after considering other contributing factors, not by much really). This is in part due to the more expensive costs of element chemistries comprising the cathode versus the typically lower costs of the element chemistries comprising the anode materials (it's not always the case though).
We would also note that the electrolyte and seprator components to a battery cell typically cost less per volume or per weight, repectively, than do the negative component or anode and the positive component or cathode portions of a battery cell.
All this being said, apparently performance wise, the NanoXplore developed and VoltaXplore manufactured graphene enhanced battery cells are at least equal in performance to certain existing global battery cells manufacturers' products and in certain attributes (e.g. weight, operating temperature, individual battery cell components longevity and charging speed attributes, amongst others), would be superior to those battery cells being produced and supplied to the major EV automotive manufacturers for use in vehicles purchased by a certain demographic of EVs purchasers currently.
Essentially, NanoXplore's developed proprietary battery cell chemistries and cells performance attributes were designed not to specifically be disruptive to the battery cells development and manufacturing industry globally.
Although, I really think Mr. Soroush Nazarpour is playing coy with the global battery cells development and manufacturing industry players.
You, Dumont, suggested, "If various Federal and Provincial Governments are indeed serious about promoting the various components of the EV infrastucture,
it would seem that Voltaxplore should be a shoe in for major funding."
By George! I think you've got it now Dumont, lol.
That is exactly what I have been trying to convey; and yet; I am sure you understood that from the beginning, eh.
Finally, in regards to your suggestion regarding how the coming Q2/2023 conference call could be designed to include NanoXplore investors being allowed to actually ask questions of Mr. Nazarpour &Co, via internet video and/or audio link either during or after said conference call, I'll simply suggest that there is nothing which I would care to ask Mr. Nazarpour & Co during this coming Q2/2023 conference call or even immediately afterward during a exclusive 3 hour long privately held and intentionally designed to be a NanoXplore "minority" shareholders excluding meeting amongst preferred "friends", so to speak, nor during or after a annual general meeting of NanoXplore shareholders intended to do much the same Dumont.
Clearly, I simply do not like having my chain seemingly incessantly yanked, so to speak, by or on behalf of Mr. Nazarpour &Co.
Mr. Nazarpour & Co may or may not appreciate such a thing; I certainly don't.
In closing, you stated, " . . .This not to imply anything improper on the part of the company historically as they ran the last meeting in full legal compliance as near as I can see."
RESPONSE: I don't have to imply or otherwise suggest and you don't need to infer anything as pertains to what my immediately following closing comment does plainly convey, Dumont.
Simply because something was done "in a full legal compliance" does not make exactly how it was done adequately proper nor, in my own opinion, "upright" in nature.