Developing Processes For The Low-Cost Manufacturing Of High Purity Silicon Metals For Next-Generation Lithium-ion Batteries

Achieved final critical milestones, completing a successful silicon pour

Sponsored
Message: My comments on PYR Forum...

Stocky,

I have read Peter reply on the PYR Forum to the copy and past of your last post here and I must say that I agree 100% with Peter comment …

Unfortunately, I do not write as well as he does, but here are my comments…

Now let address your first comment:

“I'm not certain as to why you think my questions are cynical. Is Agoracom not the place for discussion? 

Base on my long experience with you, and from what many other members of your private group have relayed to me, I am surprised that you ask that question… and as Peter said just this post of yours is confirmation of your cynical nature.

Yes Agoracom is a place for mature discussion, and for investors it’s a unique space where one can ask the CEO of a Company questions…  But repeating the same point over and over again without listening to any other arguments is not a discussion but a monologue …

Now let address your next comment:

“I do get concerned as a shareholder when the CEO of one public company indicates royalty payments are based on the patent being awarded and then the other CEO says they are not related.”

This is a semantic debate about a hypothetical point, as both Peter and I believe that we will be granted a patent to protect the Purevap IP. 

And this is a good example of my previous point; there is no possibility of discussion when you and some others have decided that we will not be getting a Patent for the Purevap, regardless of what we say.

Lets be very clear, in this regards Peter pretty well some up our argument on the subject with the following comments about our patent application and subsequent WIPO comments.

“First rest assured that what you see is nothing to be concerned about.  One see’s this all the time when applying for a patent.  Talking from experience we, at PyroGenesis, have seen this with most of our patent applications, and I cannot think of a single patent application that we were denied.

To answer your question, one needs to understand the players and the process.  It basically works something like this: when we apply for a patent it behooves us to try and describe in as much detail what the patent can uniquely do and, at the same time, get the best coverage surrounding the patent claims.  That is our role.  The examiners role, on the other hand, is to challenge our patent and/or limit our claims.  That is their role. Of note is that the examiner cannot be expected to be an expert in every field so often time the challenges are more of a “please explain why…” type of a challenge.  What you refer to in the link is a typical challenge, which to the untrained eye may seem daunting.  Trust me it’s not and it is all in hand.”

And yet you and your friends continue to repeat your position on the subject on all BB and then you wonder why we question your motive.

I don’t have any difficulty providing strait answers to any shareholder questions, the problem is that you are not listening to our answer because it not the answer you want…

Regarding the following comment:

I would say it’s a good thing not more than just a few people are following this board, or we may see a few more people feeling uncomfortable like me, and a number of other shareholders I know.

Now this comment is interesting in light of the many comments I get from other shareholders that do communicate with you on your private board and then contact me to warned me and ask me what your agenda is?

To be honest I have no clue about your agenda, because it make no sense, my best call is you like the idea and the concept but hate the team leading it !!!

Don’t believe me that some of your private board buddies are contacting me… Then how would I have find out who your professor is…  Yes him, the same guys that think he know more about the Purevap process then they guys at Pyro…

And this allow me to give my 2 cents worth on carbon subject…

You state:

Also when a CEO tells one share holder that they don't know how much carbon is in the product and than tells the next shareholder that we have control over the Silicon Carbide and it's no longer an issue for a year or so. I assumed the CEO understood that it’s the Carbon in the silicon that causes Silicon Carbide, this is the contradiction that another poster also noticed, so I’m obviously not alone in my concerns.

Now here first let me quote Peter Reply:

“I wish to point out the obvious without sounding trite; there is a reason “Carbon” and “Silicon Carbide” are named differently… it is simply because they are different.  They act differently, behave differently and…. are handled differently.  There is no contradiction here and we have answered this question in a previous post.”

Now mine:

What amaze me is that the your professor and you, that claims to know so much, and even more then the guys at Pyro, completely overlook the simple fact that is all the book, SiC is an intermediate stage in the process… So if you have Sic you have and incomplete process… that subject is in all the books on making Si and we actually cover that in one of old presentation, the October 2016 version, on page 11…

Now I know that all you don’t have that slide you just need to follow the link to see it…

 http://i67.tinypic.com/102qw6o.jpg

You see we can make the difference between C – Sic and Si visually using SEM EDS imaging and as the image clearly show there is a clear boundaries…

So we were aware of that issue from a long time ago and our testing protocol took care of that …

From our June 2017 press release we mentioned that:

As a result of this review, HPQ and PyroGenesis have now approved a new testing protocol to be used going forward for the Silicon Metal produce by the PUREVAP™ QRR.  The new testing protocol will first assess the homogeneity of the silicon phase by Scanning Electron Microscope - Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) in back scattering mode before any destructives test are completed.  While the addition of this step increases the time before we get any results above 3N+ purity, this step was deemed critical in assessing sample purity level.

In conclusion this subject was addressed a long time ago, our testing protocol covered the situation, since we first tested the material with SEM-EDS to confirm the purity of the material up to 3N and since the SEM-EDS can differentiate between SiC and Si, then when we sent the material for the balance of testing for higher purity we new that the impurities left were emanating from Si.

What have we learn from this, a) you like to waste management time by asking us to answer self evident questions, that any real professor would have understood, just because you have decided to questions all our statements veracity. 2) We are still clueless on your agenda or true motive from your post, but shareholder education is not one of them.

So after making me waste my time about the 4 months hold period, (I had confirmed it but you needed tangible proof) and this waste of time don’t be surprised if I don’t really bother replying to our questions.  (But I will keep my right to reply if I have time to waste).  PS the time to waste only apply to Stocky questions, all other are invited…

 

Regards

Bernard Tourillon

CEO

 

Disclaimers: This post contains certain forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, statements containing the words "may", "plan", "will", "estimate", "continue", "anticipate", "intend", "expect", "in the process" and other similar expressions which constitute "forward-looking information" within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Forward-looking statements reflect the Company's current expectation and assumptions and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties including, but not limited to, our expectations regarding the acceptance of our products by the market, our strategy to develop new products and enhance the capabilities of existing products, our strategy with respect to research and development, the impact of competitive products and pricing, new product development, and uncertainties related to the regulatory approval process. Such statements reflect the current views of the Company with respect to future events and are subject to certain risks and uncertainties and other risks detailed from time-to-time in the Company's ongoing filings with the securities regulatory authorities, which filings can be found at www.sedar.com. Actual results, events, and performance may differ materially. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements either as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable securities laws.

 

 

 

Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply