Saint and Stocky,

Since both of you are claiming the existence of a major discrepancy between our January 27, 2017, release and today release on the other board, I thought I would address my answer to both of you...

To get people up to speed, Saint and Stocky are insinuating that:

·      The report confirms the scalability of the Process, explaining that in order to improve the yield of High Purity Silicon Metal (99.9+% Si) produced per batch, the lab-scale PUREVAPtm QRR reactor was successfully modified and capacity scaled up by a factor of 3 (300%).  As a result, yield went from less than 0.1 g to 8.8 g (test #32), an increase of approximately 9,000% (hundredfold). (January 27, 2017 release)

Is the same as what we published in today release…

Very promising output results have also been attained:

·      The largest individual sample of Si produced to date with the Gen 2 PUREVAP™ is 8.5 grams; 8 times more massive than the maximum produced with Gen 1 PUREVAP™;

·      The total mass of Si produced during one Gen 2 PUREVAP™ test is 11.5 times greater than the average of the top 20 GEN 1 PUREVAP™ tests.

Ok here goes the answer…

In the January 27, 2017, press release we talk about the yield going from 0.1 gr to 8.8 g and we have a nice picture of many small chunks of Si…. So it clear that we are talking about the total mass of Si produced.   Furthermore, in the January 27, 2017, release, we make no mention of the size of any individual sample of Si produced …

So it clear that trying to link the two results as been the same is like comparing apple and Hot Dog….( Or maybe a lousy attempt by bashers to insinuate that management is lying ???)

One further point, in today press release we state: the total mass of Si produced during one Gen 2 PUREVAP™ test is 11.5 times greater than the average of the top 20 GEN 1 PUREVAP™ tests.

So from that statement, one can only conclude that the 19 other samples produced a significantly less total mass of Si then test #32 ….

What is funny is that in one of the working version of the pr, we actually have this additional point:

·      The total mass of Si produced during one Gen 2 test is 2.5 times (+250%) the highest Gen 1 production result, attained only once during the 94 Gen 1 tests program.

But we decided to remove it because it was overkill, the point has been made – it's producing more!

So my conclusion from all of this is: As Charlie Brown would say; GOOD GRIEF!!!

FYI, don’t try to claim that you are just asking questions, the way you raise this issue was very clear attempt at bashing …  so my questions are:

Why do two different people, and since I know would they are I can state that that claims to have a significant position, go to such an effort to try to insinuate that management is deceitful?

Bernard Tourillon

CEO