RE:Eyes on the prizeridethewinners,
You stated "For me this is not an earnings story, it is far too early for that. "
I agree with that assessment and I expect so too would many of the analysts and current equities investors following NanoXplore for at least the past 4 years.
You stated "Whether Volta makes or loses 2 or 3 million is not a material fact. What matters is making sure GRA does not commit to a $300 plus million facility to build batteries with no customers, and that discipline has been shown by management".
In focusing on whether year after year increased loses attributable to the VoltaXplore downstream investment enterprise are or are not material to the operation of NanoXplore, are you attempting to diminish precisely what I did state regarding expected continued elevated and definitely not just nominal loses attributable to and resulting from the now failed and clearly money pit VoltaXplore enterprise?
Should a projected 9.9% reduction of ongoing 2025 fiscal year losses be considered by you to be greatly reduced loses, you should consider that VoltaXplore could still contribute to the balance sheet very roughly $2.6 Million worth of losses spread throughout each quarter of fiscal 2025.
You suggest a proposed potential loss attributable to VoltaXplore alone of $2.6 Million is not material to NanoXplore and I agree that said sum is not considered to be material to the operation of NanoXplore.
However, such a potential fiscal year 2025 loss of roughly $2.6 Million, a reduction of approximately 9.9% from fiscal 2024, would in fact be considered to be, i.e. should that actually be closer to the extent of VoltaXplore's annual contribution to NanoXplore losses, precisely indicative of what I had suggested about VoltaXplore.
With respect to NanoXplore management having made sure that NanoXplore withdrew from the previously publicly disseminated and clearly suggested commitment to build, commission and operate the 2GWh facility, certainly I do agree with you that NanoXplore management electing to not actually pursue what they clearly suggested they had already commenced (land acquisition, engineering work and other expenditures relating to G&A, etc) and would achieve sometime during 2026, was actually a right and therefore proper decision on GRA.T management's part.
Yes. That level of discipline demonstrated by management on behalf of the company and we GRA.T shareholders is certainly greatly appreciated; and yet, that doesn't excuse management from chosing to seemingly piss away the initial 10 year 1.5GWh per annum worth of offtake purchase agreement secured sales of all those NanoXplore's proprietary graphene enhanced and graphene-silicon anode additive enhanced battery cells.
At the very least operate the 1MWh capacity facility at full nameplate capacity and seek to fulfill a 1 MWh portion of the announced as contracted offtake purchase orders for just one previously announced offtake purchase agreement entering into customer.
I would expect that getting the graphene and graphene-silicon enhanced batteries into use by a company such as Caterpillar, for example, in powering an exclusive co-branded high-end line of Caterpillar's construction power tools or even powering a portable battery energy storage system manufactured for and co-branded with Caterpillar; that would have been a suitable alternative. An alternative which would have VoltaXplore actually generating initial revenues that could, at the very least, offset the ongoing expenditures relating losses drain on NanoXplore specifically attributable to the VoltaXplore enterprise.
Not to mention that a specific benefit of such a proposed 1MWh capacity manufacturing partnership and licensed co-branding high-end construction power tools products deal being pursued and achived in the meanwhile, would be that "SiGTM" enhanced battery cells and NanoXplore would be placed on the map, so to speak.
It's certainly not the only way to monetize proprietary battery chemistries relating IP through joint partnersship and licensed co-branding commercialization efforts; and yet something of the sort can not be out of hand dismissed as an option in seeking to have VoltaXplore generate an appreciable revenues stream ridethewinners.
You stated "I am in this for the graphene expansion, and the possibilities of products like drilling fluids. If the company can clarify where the new 12,000 tons will be made, the financing and at least some of the customers, that will add confidence to the top line revenue growth".
The "dry process" graphene manufactuing capacity increases proposed by company management are obviously to some extent (I'd suggest an enourmous extent) dependent upon the ability for NanoXplore to necessarily secure more than just sufficient very long term supply of lower costing recyclable waste by-product graphite material which remains following the mass industrial scale (e.g. 42,000 tpa capacity) process manufacturing of specifically "mechanically spheronized" CSPG anode component material.
There are several ways in which the sufficient steady long term supply of said recyclable waste by-product graphite material can be secured and most guaranteed by NanoXplore; one of such ways involving NanoXplore first having financed, built commissioned and operated a 42,000 tpa capacity and specifically "mechanically spheronized" CSPG manufacturing facility.
Given that VoltaXplore is off the table, I believe NanoXplore representatives could have sold the previously prepared capital financing provisioning parties, there was roughly $$350 Million of capital financing secured for the VoltaXplore 2GWh manufacturing facility proposal, on the idea of shifting their capital provisioning support to NanoXplore's buildout of just such a specifically "mechanically spheronized" CSPG manufacturing facility. manufacturing facility.
Just a couple of thoughts here for you ridethewinners.
I look forward to your reply.