Dear Fellow Investors,

So in this part 2 of my post, I will reply to the BIG NON-Issued raised by Deepak10solar:

My replies will be included in the body of his question, (in Bold, Italic and Underline) just as I would do with every question asked on Agoracom 

“Polite Greetings from India.

I will probably not receive 4 stars for what I am about to inform, but it really is pertaining to every one’s investment in HPQ and its future value here.” 

I will come back to your true motive for Posting later… 

“I was recently looking at the presentation on the HPQ website and noticed that the cash cost estimate on Purevap silicon has more than doubled since the previous presentation on the website (actually it appears to be +240%), I do not recall the company explicitly stating this very significant change (but it is a forward-looking statement) Perhaps I missed it? 

See the presentation here, page 4. (http://www.hpqsilicon.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/HPQ-MARCH-2-2018-VER-With-APPENDIX.pdf) 

The cash costs were previously estimated to be between $1.75 and $2.25 per Kg. Today this estimate seems to be around $4.80, quite a bit higher, and this is still an estimate presented long before operational testing has begun. It probably is not going to reduce in actual cost in my opinion (I could be wrong).” 

You are not wrong in stating that there was a change, but that is normal in an R&D project like ours. (That is why we write in our presentation: PUREVAPtm cash costs estimates will be firm up after Pilot plant phase).   

As I stated before, at this stage of our R&D, we still do not know what is the maximum upper limit of purification of the PUREVAPtm process, but what we have learned from the guys at Apollon is that we can build a very attractive value proposal by adding UMG process after the Purevap with the results we already have.  

So the reason for the increase is that instead of showing the best-case scenario, we have chosen to start talking about the number that takes into consideration the possibility that we may have to add additional steps to produce SoG Si.   But the key take away is that, even at $5 per KG cash cost, we still cream the competition… 

Anyway, in the new presentation that we will be making available soon, we have incorporated what we believe is our worst-case PUREVAPtm + UMG scenario, and even with that scenario, the project is still very financially attractive. 

“Something that I found even more worrying is the estimate on CO2 equivalent per ton of Silicon, which on page 20 (the page titled “Purevap the only Green option”) of the same presentation, it is indicated that the CO2 equivalent per Ton of Silicon is 9.1 metric tons Co2 Eq per ton Silicon. Pretty Green, but not totally. 

It is very well known that the gasses produced by the Carbon / Quartz Thermocarbic reduction used in this process (and based on the quantities of input materials given in the example on the presentation + the patent application), produces primarily Carbon Monoxide gas (CO) as a by-product, which has no direct value of carbon equivalence, thus apparently only the carbon equivalence for the power consumed has been included in the HPQ estimate for CO2 Equivalence. 

However, several studies published by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicate that the secondary or indirect effect of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions is a factor of about 10*CO2 Equivalent for a 20 year measure.   At least 2.4 tons of CO must be produced per ton of Silicon (high school chemistry assuming 80% yield). This would result in about 24 additional CO2 Equivalent Metric Tons for a total of at least 33 MT produced per ton of Silicon.  

www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/249.htm 

Is this still considered a GREEN process?  

This is naturally all my honest opinion but is based on references provided.” 

Question, why bother making up numbers about MT of Co2 produced by the Purevap? 

Especially when on page 21 of the presentation, you had the following information: 

The PUREVAP™ QRR process is estimated to generate 14.1 kg CO2 eq/Kg SG Si;  

The Siemens process (the industry standard) normally generates 54.0 kg CO2 eq/Kg SG Si of emissions.* 

•       This represents 75% fewer greenhouse gas emissions, which is justified by the elimination of the emissions emanating from the use of chemicals, as well as, energy consumption from the additional purification step.  

Source:  R. Glöckner. M. de Wild-Scholten. Energy payback time and carbon footprint of Elkem Solar silicon. 27th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition

Furthermore, you did not need to make that entire pseudo-scientific math, since the Co2 produce during the Carbothermic process was show on the graph on page 21…   

Anyway, these numbers are no longer valid, and we did publish updated numbers in our August 13 press release, also base on reference…  

MAKING QUEBEC THE LEADER IN THE PRODUCTION OF GREEN SOLAR SILICON METAL  

The PUREVAPtm QRR capability of reducing by 96%(1) the carbon footprint associated with the greenhouse gas (GHG) emanating from the production of solar grade silicon metal (SoG Si) presents HPQ with the unique opportunity of being able to resolve the biggest paradox of the solar energy: “It’s not because photovoltaïques solar panels do not emit CO2 (GHG) while producing electricity that solar energy is not a significant source of GHG”(2).

Rather, seventy percent (70%) of the GHG generated when building a new solar farm comes from the production of the Solar Grade Silicon Metal (SoG Si) needed for the fabrication of the solar panels.  Manufacturing SoG Si in China, the world largest producer, generates an astounding 141 kg of CO2 per Kg of SoG Si produced.  In Germany that ratio is reduced to 87.7 kg CO2 per Kg of SoG Si produced.  Using the PUREVAPtm QRR process in Quebec should only produce 5.4 kg CO2 per Kg de SoG Si produced.(1)

Using the Hydro-Quebec stated goal of building a new 100 MW solar farm in the province as benchmark, it is easy to demonstrate that if the solar cells needed to build the solar farm are produced in China, it would represent an import of 56,540 tonnes of GHG (CO2) for the Province of Quebec. If the solar cells are produced in Germany, it would represent an import of 35,090 tonnes of CO2 for the Province. However, if the solar cells needed for Hydro-Quebec were produced in Quebec using the PUREVAPtm QRR process, only 2,154 tonnes of CO2 would be produced. (3)

Using a SoG Si produced with the PUREVAPtm QRR process, in Québec, would reduce the CO2 Carbon Footprint of the Hydro-Quebec solar project by 54,336 tonnes, compared to using an SoG Si produced in China, which is the equivalent amount of GHG produced by 11,635 cars operating during one year(4).

(1) Rapport Pyrogenesis - Empreinte carbone silicium SoG TM-2016-708

(2) https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21711301-new-paper-may-have-answer-how-clean-solar-power

(3) Assessing the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from solar PV and wind energy: A critical meta-survey,  Energy Policy, February 2014, Pages 229-244

(4) https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator

So why did you publish such false information?  Why would someone who states that they know Kade1, sold his shares in HPQ and PYR because of the point he raised, would come and post facts that are that easy to debunk?

I have a hard time believing that was all an error… It looks more like a set up to present KADE1 great non-carbothermic process…

To be continued on post #3

Regards,

Bernard Tourillon
CEO