HPQ Silicon Inc V.HPQ

RE:video interview

[BCONTVentures]

Some great comments from @Vestor111 (ceo) on the recent Agoracom interview on HPQ Silicon (HPQ Silica Polvere Inc.) on Fumed Silica:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPJ8gW9ISFE

@Vestor111 @MattyH If more than five samples are sent out, things could get interesting. This technology is far too disruptive to ignore. And too disruptive not to try and capture for competitive advantage. This path leaves the door open to a bear hug that the company might be inclined to consider.

@Vestor111 [I felt the need to clean up some typos and add a point or two. I thought I could just the delete the earlier version but no.]

So pls anyone correct me if I am wrong. The FS reactor is supposed to be assembled, tested and commissioned in 2Q with sample also in 2Q.
If so, you have 5 to 7 embedded players with billions on the line in both plant and equipment and elbowing for marketshare with a big step function to capex (ie not scaleable). So potentially billions more capex to address incremental market growth.
Add to this other potential wannabes possibly with significant resources and similar market experience.
On top of this tight margin market, CO2 taxes putting further bureaucratically imposed stains on the world's industrial base (not free and we will end up paying for it).
So potentially with in the next 90 days, provided successful sampling, the leaders of the FS market will have their heads in a vise on how to address this threat/opportunity. (BTW I would think that vise has already been applied, successful sampling will only be major threat to their survival. A real serious issue is standing right there, any new entrant getting the jump on this new and greatly improved process could basically mop the floor with the market players with a 1/14th cost per KG advantage.
Just situations are fairly rare.
If I were on the new entrant team sensing the huge opportunity in front of the team, I would be arguing to throw down an offer HPQ/PYR could not refuse. The answer seems fairly obvious, contract to buy the first 20 or 30 reactors and immediately undersell the embedded market base. HPQ/BT I would think would negotiate for a NRS of say 5% to 10%/kg sold. This assumes any new entrant would want to own and control the reactors.

@Vestor111 With a string of direct sales into an established market, HPQ will be exposing the market to the vulnerability that is right there in plain sight - obviously predicated on successful sampling to a wide array of market participants ie end customers, suppliers and wouldbe entrants. Direct sales will be proof of viability for any wouldbe. The trick will be to own the first 20 to 30 reactors and grab marketshare on both price and combo of direct crippling CO2 taxes and indirect CO2 audit ratings as products using FS (Fumed Silica) get rated on their constituent ingredient's CO2 inputs.

(Add to this, CBDCs with each item purchased visibly weighted for CO2 usage, consumers may find their accounts start blocking certain purchases as they have crept over their CO2 consumption limit for the week/month/year/lifetime. You consumed to much beef this week! You fly too much for pleasure! STOP THAT! You drive too much! etc. And recall, CO2 is plant food that you exhale. STOP BREATHING!)

eric_a_su wrote: