PyroGenesis Inc T.PYR

The Swedish study

[rummager]

I do not currently own shares in PYR. Continues to follow it. Just read the Swedish study. The conclusions which begin on about page 60 are worth a read:

https://odr.chalmers.se/bitstream/20.500.12380/256741/1/256741.pdf

NOx emissions are described as the "only negative. It is, however, a significant problem as described in the document.

The document seems to imply that there will be no blockbuster deals. Instead, it requires significant "experimentation" on both NOx and quality of the pellets. To determine quality, it suggested installing one or two torches in conjunction with diesel fuel based burners. It recommends quality assessment at that stage, and, through each additional stage of adding one or two torches, until the whole induration unit employs only plasma.

Since one torch has been sold, we can probably assume that it is being used for testing quality.

By the way, plasma torches completely eliminate CO2 emissions. If successfully deplyed in all of the world's pellet plants, it would be the equivalent of taking 8.7M cars off the road.

There remains, however, NOx. A French company has patented a process which deals with it. Can't recall the name of the company or the results of their resting.

[MakeItRain1]

You have been around long enough to know Peter has addressed the Nox. This has been discussed time and time again here. Peter has stated on Agoracom that this issue has been handled.    

[KyleUncsNephew]

Rummager are you aware sniffing glue will have a similar effect to breathing in NOx, slow it down son. 

[rummager]

Kyle, I am not the one squirting in your nest, Little Squirt. Find the real villain. I am completely innocent. I don't even know your wife.

[ScienceFirst]

Very strange that you cannot recall the name of the French company.  Maybe that's because it doesn't handle CO2 emissions efficiently! ... ;-) 

[rummager]

Irony in a name? Just for you, ScienceFirst! https://patents.google.com/patent/FR2796517A1/en

[ScienceFirst]

Rummager ... All of a sudden, you remember! Interesting that this is a 1999 patent.  One would assume that it would have captured all the contract opportunities in the iron pelletization market by then.  Especially that it's associtated to Air Liquid, a major company. But no! So why? ... ;-) Maybe it's because it's not as good (or complete) as you might think. But what

[rummager]

incinerating garbage and producing iron ore pellets is not exactly analgous. If "Peter says" he has solved the NOx issues, he's done it in the last 18 months. Is there a patent suggesting anything of the kind? The market is always right.

[ScienceFirst]

That was just an example, as mentioned.  Strange that you didn't focused on the adaptability demonstrated in this example. Markets are always right.  It just depends on the timeframe. Of course, a news release always confirm a contract. But it's strange that you're here if you doubt about their ability to win the Client A contract.  Usually, you would move to other

[rummager]

I really appreciate your respectful response. Questioning anything that Peter says usually gets treated with derision on this board. I hang around "here" because of the possibilities, which I know to be huge, but, are just possibilities at this stage. I question Peter because he seems to be as much promoter as he is CEO. Sometimes, what promoters do not say is even more important than