Talk about re-writing history. PPY has a FAQ section in this...

Talk about re-writing history. PPY has a FAQ section in this with the following words (quoted verbatim).

“Q. Why has Papyrus Australia shifted its focus from paper production technology to building materials?

“A. Technology for converting banana tree trunk fibre into paper products was the focus prior to and following the stock exchange float in 2005. This involved extracting fibre from the outer layer of a banana tree trunk and using this as a substitute for forest wood fibre in a conventional paper making process.

“While the technical feasibility of this approach was proven, the costs of breaking into the entrenched wood fibre paper-making industry proved beyond the resources of the Company, it remains a potential future application of banana tree trunk fibre.”

WOW this quote has so many inaccuracies that it is breathtaking!!

First, the process was NOT using banana fibre “as a substitute in a conventional paper making process”. It was supposed to be a totally different process more akin to timber veneering with thin (spiraly removed) sheets of banana trunk cross-plyed and dried- with the no other chemical inputs-, and the only output being paper and water. Conventional paper making uses PULP fibre (not sheets), with very large water energy and chemical demands in the process, and significant pollution outputs. The Papyrus papermaking process was supposed to be a revolution!

Second, the statement about “extracting fibre from the outer layer of a banana tree trunk” is not a true reflection of the process. According to the prospectus The INNER trunk material was to be veneered as above to produce a raw paper substitute to 100gsm paper and the OUTER trunk material was to be veneered to produce 250 gsm raw paper.

Third, the statement that “the technical feasibility of this approach was proven” is hardly true. As others have often observed here that despite prospectus claims that “the Company has the technology, scientific knowhow and the processes to enable the conversion of banana fibre into “raw paper”” there is NO evidence that “raw paper” as envisaged in the prospectus was EVER produced by any of the machines (as opposed to hand made scraps of veneer).

Hence, fourth, “the costs of breaking into the entrenched wood fibre-making industry proved beyond the resources of the company” was NEVER an issue because there was never any product with which to break into the market in the first place. If the product had succeeded in accordance with the prospectus, there would have been huge profits, with costs little more than 10% of conventional technology. The fact is there was adequate money in the beginning IF the technology actually worked. It didn’t and still doesn’t! The “wood fibre-making industry” far from being “entrenched” baddies, wouldn’t even have heard of Papyrus!!

They go on to talk about how great the fibre panels are without mentioning that they haven’t even got a technically feasible panel yet.

We were supposed to have financing milestones by now to pay for the machines to Egypt- still not happened. The machines are not even complete anyway…

Oh dear, I so wished this would work back in the Noughties.