Alterras Systems Inc (fka ASIUQ)

[GWMAN]

In response to your posting:

1.) Bradford may well have been the leader that kept the company alive through the financial collapse of recent years BUT surely, reward should be given for success, not failure. What has the company achieved to date that warrants a bonus compensation?

Personnel reainment, payment, etc is thew right of the CEO and Board to decide. It does not condern me.

What is left in the England offices of Valcent to undertake ANY research given the resignation of key personnel mid 2010 and the redundancies of others more recently?

Sorry, but this is utter conjecture. There has been no discussion on this board as to who is left there or what they do, what research and product refinement is happening (which we know IS happening from public information), etc, so your suggestion research and devbelopment cannot be happening is just not factuaL or supported by anything you have posted.

2.) I was simply stating the facts as they are presented in the public domain. VertiCrop has so far failed to attract a single buyer which led me to wonder if the product actually had any commercial value. When the product in the format presented was commercially viable, then surely there would have been buyers for it by now? Perhaps the product is simply not of interest to serious commercial entities and the system as installed at Paignton Zoo is a one off. There is no doubt that as the world's first vertical growing system, the Paignton Zoo VertiCrop generated tremendous interest and excitement (and still does) but since then, nothing has developed or changed. As the very first installation, one would expect that the system would be tweaked and upgraded as new lessons were learned. I suspect that others have watched and learned and have now overtaken Valcent in the development of commercially viable vertical growing systems. And the lack of ANY sale of a VertiCrop system to date would seem to indicate that the company does NOT have a real product to meet the demands of the new farming industry. Sad but probably true.

Again, you seem to focus only on the negative and do not explore any of the facts. You do not acknowledge it takes cash to produce your product you want to sell and it is obvious Valcent was broke and saddled with debt, and unlikely to have the means to kick off sales in 2010. Yet, you choose to assume it is not sellable. While this is possible, logic suggests it is more likely Valcent did not have the the means to execute sales in 2010. Additionally, you suggest one would have expected it to be tweaked and upgraded, as if it has not happened. Yet, in fact, the company has publicly noted it has made changes and upgrades. Further, you note it looks like the company does not have a real product. But, you do not propose any reasoning for why Fane would choose to come out of retirement for a fake product or why Ng would leave Lululemon to drive the commercialization of a unsellable product. Strange.

You can choose to be negativce if you want, but it does not mean it is logical or accurate.

There are some concerns to discuss about the company, but crazy, baseless crap about how the company has lost all its important people and no research or development is happening is BS.