Member Info for 15LIVES

Patxaran

That's my thinking.

I know I get a lot of stick on here for my viewpoint, but I've been stung by AIM stock before, so I'm ultra careful.

Scooby

I e mailed requesting clarification, and asked whether the open day would be a demonstration of the cold commissioning procedure confirmed in the recent RNS, or whether syngas would be produced on the day.

The reply was prompt, within the hour, and succinct, simply stating it would be a full demonstration. I sent another request asking if the company's meaning of full demonstration actually meant the production of syngas. That was sent just before the close of business so hopefully I'll get a reply to that tomorrow.

I can't understand why if they have successfully produced syngas they haven't released that as a separate RNS. After all, that's the Holly grail here. An RNS giving a brief overview of the feedstock and the amount and purity of syngas would really help the share price, get press coverage in the business news and in doing so boost interest in the open day.

Hence my reservation still.

Hi Scooby

Re your post yesterday.

It shall be a full demonstration.

Confirmed by company via e mail.

Swazers

The only thing that needs to be broken down is this:

After today's RNS, if retail and institutional investors go to the open day shall they have a demonstration of cold commissioning only, or hot commissioning and a demonstration of syngas being produced.

It's as simple as that at the moment.

That's the question that should be answered right now by the company, because everyone wants to know and it should be made clear one way or the other.

As an investor, are you seriously telling me that after today's RNS you don't want to know, because the institutional investors who have been invited will certainly be asking. Do you think they are going to make their way to Bridgend for an open day not knowing what to expect.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

To not question it is lazy, sloppy research.

You're like a mushroom , happy to be kept in the dark, whilst the company feed you whatever they choose to. It's your company for heaven's sake. Your money. Investors and potential investors have a right to know what's going on. The company have put out invites so they should make it clear what to expect. Your willingness to be kept in the dark as to whether hot commissioning has been successful is what those who run AIM businesses love.

Last December they changed the terminology to hot and cold commissioning when it was clear hot commissioning would not be completed by the end of the year as initially promised, and now there's this ambiguous RNS today. Emmitt and co are rolling you over and tickling your bellies today.

For God's sake read the RNS properly and read what's actually happening, not what you want to be happening.

Swazers

How about we dismantle your tactics.

How about you pick up the phone now and call Powerhouse and ask them if you come to the open day as an investor what it is you shall actually get to see.

My post a little earlier was a perfectly reasonable question to ask given today's RNS and given that no confirmation has yet been given confirming successful hot commissioning and the production of syngas.

Your mind is so closed to anything questioning of Powerhouse it's shocking. You see anyone and everyone who is not totally committed and convinced of success here as either a troll or a deramper or having an agenda.

Who do you think you are?

The thought police?

How about you tell me your share price predictions the past year and I'll tell you mine.

As today's RNS invites retail investors to the open day, then surely it would be acceptable for those of you who are invested to e-mail the company and just ask them what you can expect to see should you go.

Either it's a cold commissioning demonstration with an expectation of hot commissioning later in the year, or it's a demonstration of hot commissioning where you see syngas as the end product.

Does anyone have an Enigma machine I can borrow?

Swazers

It's good of you to apologise.

Swazers

These personal insults you keep referring to. Are they like the ones when you called Red Hornet a moron and told Loadsadough to STFU?

The misinformation to which you refer. Is that like when you stated £400,000 paid for the FEED contract when it was £350,000?

Swazers

Not £400,000 for FEED contract, but £350,000.

Get your facts right.

Source: RNS 18th November.

swazers

i really couldn't be bothered wasting too much of my time going through all of your points. that's why i chose to answer just the first.

you posted that nh2 were building a waste to energy plant. i thought that was misleading to anyone who was new to this board and this company. so i clarified it by stating that at this stage they were intending to but had not yet received planning approval or raised money.

i consider my view to be more accurate than yours.

at no point have i said or suggested national hydrogen's application is a weak point, simply that until it has been accepted it should not be taken as a given.

i really could not be ****d getting into a long and protracted argument with someone whose mind is closed to anything even slightly questionable of powerhouse or national hydrogen's undertaking.

Swazers

Rather than trawling through each point you make I'll answer and defend the first one only and if I feel you have considered my response I'll answer the others.

Your first claim accuses me of stating- tacit or otherwise - that NH2 planning application is an indication of failure or uncertainty. Where and how on earth you interpreted my post as saying that I do not know. I'm fully aware that a planning application is the first regulatory requirement for any major infrastructure project.

At no point did I dismiss the planning application as insignificant nor state or suggest NH2 are not serious in their intent.

Instead of replying using a flow chart like a solicitor in a court room trying to come across professional and intelligent, you would be better off reading what posters have actually said rather than what you think they have said and converse with people in a manner that recognises and accepts others can have a different opinion to yours without them having underhanded intentions.

Also, saying the word Fact: does not mean everything you write after it is so.

Castle

With all due respect, I don't think I am scaremongering. I'm just being realistic. Neither did I say the planning application was far-fetched.

You've noted what NH2 have said about their intentions. It sounds great. But they are trying to raise money, so are going to give things the big sell. The bottom line is they clearly struggled to raise the money last year to get the FEED contract in order to submit their planning application. So to question them raising further finance should their application be approved is a relevant one.

None of us need to be told the need to get rid of plastic waste.

You keep going on about the White's selling. You have no proof of this. If they are it's their business. Neither can you claim the share price would be over 3p if they weren't selling. You simply say that as an excuse to cover your lousy share price predictions the past year.

Why do you keep saying Powerhouse technology is self sufficient as if no other manufacturers technology is not? A few months ago I posted a telephone number for you to call. It was the number of a company who manufacturer pyrolysis technology that is self sufficient. If you call them up they'll sell you one. Other manufacturers technology also utilise the heat generated for water and heating. These things are not unique to Powerhouse.

I hope Powerhouse do go global, but I'm just being more realistic about things than you are.

Swazers

National H2 is not constructing a waste to energy plant in Western Australia. Whilst intending to they have merely submitted a planning application at this stage. That is why they have paid Powerhouse for the FEED contract, because without it they can't submit the planning application.

There is a massive backlash against waste to energy plants across Australia. This includes gasification technology. So don't assume a successful application. If their application is indeed approved then they have to raise the necessary finance.

Where is that going to come from?

That's a genuine question.

If United Hydrogen IPO, then how likely is that given their failed attempt at floatation last year. March this year is their next attempt. Given Will Davidson's statement that the last failure was due to an unusual business model and high interest rates, how likely is a successful IPO next time?

If planning application is approved followed by a successful IPO and money is available to National Hydrogen, it will still take a very long time to get up and running, all the time while Powerhouse's money is being eaten into.

These things are why the serious investors are staying out at the moment and why, after all the positive news flow, the share price is still bobbing around a penny. Nothing to do with what the White's are or aren't doing. It's all about those with their heads screwed on seeing things here for what they really are: a start up AIM company with good prospects, but with dwindling reserves facing a possible fund raise this year whilst trying to prove and get to market an innovative technology.

Castle

That's exactly what I said.

They changed the terminology in December when it was clear they couldn't complete commissioning by year end.

Castle

They were not on time and target for completion.

RNS 19th June 2024 stated commissioning to be completed by end of 2024.

Cold and hot terminology was introduced when this failed to happen in order to keep the shareholders happy.

Which it did.

Campaign Against Aviation.

Bloody autocorrect.

Thanks for reply, Testpack and explaining where your questioning of it came from.

As you say, things are very dynamic at the moment.

Within the industry the CAA is referred to as the Campaign Against Flying such is their communication skill.

Hi Testpack

Apologies. Didn't mean my post to come across, as it did, that Fischer-Tropsch is a feedstock.

The following is from the American Society of Testing and Materials. Not sure if you've come across it. If not would be interested to know your thoughts:

The Fischer-Tropsch process takes any carbon containing material and breaks it into individual building blocks in a gas form (synthesis gas). FT synthesis then combines these building blocks into SAF and other fuels. Two different FT processes have been certified by ASTM to date, one that produces a straight paraffinic jet fuel (SPK) and one that also produces additional aromatic compounds (SAK). Both processes can use any carbon containing starting material according to the specification. Maximum blend ratio for both options is 50%. ASTM spec for SPK:D7566 Annex 1; ASTM spec for SAK: D7566 Annex 4.

Hi Testpack

SAF has to be made to standard ASTM D7566.

The Fischer-Tropsch process is recognised as one of the acceptable feedstock and production technologies using carbon based materials to produce syngas for utilisation into synthetic kerosene, which is then mixed with conventional jet fuel.

That's how I've read it, but happy to be corrected.