Member Info for AnneOwl

It's bad enough when most of the posts are spam, but do we really need 500 characters of spam in the subject too !

Whilst idly gathering some data for a pet data analysis project, I came across a post of mine from 2019-04-04.

Share price was just 3.4 pence, if only I'd been braver to double (or treble!) down, ha.

BumbleB (the original account, and one that he strangely didn't choose to erase all the posts of, unlike the other alternative accounts he set up) was still blaming rampers and derampers then, fully expecting a P.L.A.C.E. update (remember that!), and excited about the expected Southern RNS. I guess things really never change, here we are (mostly) all still hanging on to this share for some strange reason.

The £27M order book, be that contractual or implied or MOU’d sounds terrific, but it was unfortunate to hear expected revenue for 2024 was just £5M to £6M.

Why can’t an order book of that size be met with delivered product inside of one year? - perhaps due to our limited in-house manufacturing capacity?

Why can’t an order book of that size be met with delivered product inside of two years, when we’re meant to see contract manufacturing agreements signed later in 2024? - that’s an unknown.

And for three years? - that’s a concern given we all hope the order book will continue to grow throughout that period!

Funding concerns are clearly stated :

### Going concern

 

"To deliver on the Company's intention to capitalise on its growing market opportunities it needs to scale up its manufacturing output and continue investing in research and development, both of which will require additional funding."

"To reach the end of 2025 with positive cash would require at least £7 million of additional funding, however this amount would not be enough for the Company to scale up at its preferred rate."

"In addition, the Board reviewed possible downside scenarios to establish the resilience of the Company's cash reserves and identified the impact of continuing high levels of cost inflation, particularly on *employee remuneration* and supply chain, combined with delays of sales receipts as a particular risk."

Sounds like they'll be raising by the end of the year, definitely £7m worth, probably several multiples of that.

Hello tennents, nowhere did I suggest AFCs manufacturing capacity was only 100! I went as far as directly quoting AB saying it was from 1 to 200 per annum. I made the reasonable assumption that we won’t be manufacturing at full capacity from day one, and the (hopefully) reasonable assumption that we get at least 50% of our full capacity in orders within the first year, ie. before we actually have contract manufacturing agreements in place.

I do appreciate your reply and am thankful that nobody sank to making derogatory remarks or swearing at one another. Oh what a decent board this could be if we all behaved like adults!

Ha, I'd ask whoever called that a lie to apologise, but I blocked these drongos for a reason.

So AFC can apparently manufacture "between 1 and 200" in-house, per annum.

Lets assume the median and call it 100 per year if produced in-house, which doesn't sound very impressive if thats what we have available currently until manufacturing agreements can be put in place "during the course of this year".

Hows that ABB deal going I wonder?

I would be very wary of investing in PHE, AFAICT they still dont have a tested (full size) pyrolysis unit outside of a university test-scale model, or an agreed manufacturer for said unit, not to mention the opaque nature of the relationships between PHE management and their European subsidiary / offshoot. Tread carefully if you're brave enough to ignore all that.

Kmunnelly, I doubt it affects current products at all, with the caveat that Alkamem (AFAICT) is a research project still, and far from being a product.

If we can read between the lines from the below research, they've hit issues with swelling of (Alkamem?) RG-AnionExchangeMembranes during testing, and are yet to move as far as lab trials (or get funding) for any revised chemistry of it. The second trial does sound like its improved the lifespan of whatever AEM they were testing though, which is a plus if AFC can manufacture / procure that in the short term for their current fuel cell products.

All wild speculation of course though, might as well be reading tea leaves!

Not there's another ongoing trial, funded to Sept '24. this one led by Newcastle University (also collab with AFC), which is more promising...

"Outcomes:

Description - importance of radical scavengers on life time of membrane and device. publications are in preparations

Exploitation Route - industry can incorporate the developed and stabilised membranes to produce fuel cells and electrolysers with longer lifetime"

Klunk, you have the grant references, you only need look them up on the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)'s Gateway to Research (GtR) website : https://gtr.ukri.org/

But on the bright side,... not yet demised!

I think we can presume from the TRL not currently exceeding 3, that this rad-grafted anion-exchange membrane is YEARS away from being ready for mass production and sales.

Nb. TRL levels and definitions are as follows:

TRL 1: basic principles observed and reported

TRL 2: technology concept or application formulated

TRL 3: analytical and experimental critical function or characteristic proof-of-concept

TRL 4: technology basic validation in a laboratory environment

TRL 5: technology basic validation in a relevant environment

TRL 6: technology model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment

TRL 7: technology prototype demonstration in an operational environment

TRL 8: actual technology completed and qualified through test and demonstration

TRL 9: actual technology qualified through successful mission operations.

Klunk, that trial is over (in that the outcomes have already been published) :

"Potential pathways for scaled-up fabrication of lower swelling RG-AEMs with enhanced stability (both chemically and mechanically) identified for potential higher TRL (3+) projects with interested commercial stakeholders.

Initial attempts at this (BEIS low carbon bid and EPSRC prosperity partnership bid) were unsuccessful but further efforts will be made.

New collaborations formed to allow for initial work to aid acquisition of funding for more formalised joint work. "

"Raising funds at these levels will destroy any shareholder value."

You must be new here!

Maybe we need to pick up some lab development slack now that the Denora collaboration has gone quiet.

Oh of course, there we go, basher or ramper, the binary playground you live in. You’ll forgive me if I don’t engage with you further but life is too short.

On the plans, as I had mentioned, but you know this I’m certain and are only nit-picking and purposefully misconstruing BB. Take a break and get some fresh air.

I suppose because an empty room isn’t really a lab is it?

Yes, five labs indeed BB, one of them was empty and marked TBC wasn't it.