Member Info for Bananaman2

This should be looked at as further confirmation of the technology and acceptance in an industry which is starting to pick up traction.

There are many companies that manufacture fuel cells and they would also be considered but perhaps we are now seeing that after years of R&D that what AFC have created is currently the most cost effective fuel cell on the market. Once the solid system is complete (available in less than 18 months) AFC will potentially be in a fantastic position to be a global leader in the fuel cell market.

Expecting a correction of the SP based on no more than further confirmation that AFC are now on track and can deliver as per sector peers.

And well done to the German government for recognising that hydrogen is the way forward and supporting the development of the sector.

Hopefully the UK will wake up and follow this leading example.

Just the start.

Good luck all genuine LTH's. Keep the faith. More will follow

Another green filter box. Best off not responding.

Don't encourage them.

Yes, very excited regardless of the US patent infringement claim. There is far too much to look forward too in the next 12 months.

22 remaining projects with eweRGY

Deeside and Billingham.

The US will be resolved, doesnt seem to worry Pheonix Energy or Eqtec as they are just getting on with things.

Good luck all heres for another positive week.

'A guy who built a nice chair doesn't owe money to every other guy that built a chair'

Mark Zuckerberg

davidblack. Any form of communication will be to assist with delivering the startegic plan.

Good shareholder and stakeholder communication is essential in the success of the business. As EQT will be working all over the globe with their pipeline of projects its important to gain the trust of these groups and be as transparent as possible.

It seems that both DP and WB are doing a great jobs at keeping us informed and building expectations.

I fully expect this to be considered in the SP now that the placing shares are out of the way and filtered through.

There is a fly in the ointment but EQT are doing all they can to defend themselves for what appears to be no more than opportunistic. It hasn't stopped EQT and Pheonix progressing the project.

I am convinced this is going to move at some point in the next few weeks.

Perhaps they need further contracts or demonstrate first half revenues. Having just watched the below I just think this is still under the radar.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&t=2&v=K_qvs7gIKwA

https://shreysnotepad.com/2020/08/

not one for banging on about this but seems Pheonix Energy, Eqtec's partner in North Fork are as bemused as the rest

https://sierranewsonline.com/phoenix-energy-ceo-responds-to-nf-biomass-project-lawsuit/

Foxyjoe. All the info is there in the last RNS. Its very clear. I just did a bit of work on what constitutes prior art and have attached the links.

It really could be an own goal from Aries but I assume they will still pursue it. Can you imagine EQT invalidating the patents held and then clawing back some licence fees for any equipment sold by Aries.

The world works in funny ways !

Nice analogy. You need to remeber though that some queens do have nuts !

Little article on Deeside mentioning Eqtec

https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/waste-energy-deal-plan-gasification-18829010

Stokey. Its a thorn in their side. Its a pain in their ar5e. Its also a claim not just against EQT but the companies involved in the North Fork Power project.

Its also only related to the US and has nothing to do with the UK or European contracts.

If this wasn't hanging over EQT then the SP would be higher and its clear that the MCap currently adds no value for these US projects seeing as its so far behind its peers.

Once this is out the way the SP will correct. What is the worst outcome ? What do Aries hope to gain ? I am not sure but I expect it would not be significant. If someone is using patented tech without a licence there is an issue of licencing fees. But are the Aries patents valid ? Based upon prior art I would suggest not.

How do Aries counter that type of evidence of prior art ? I would suggest its very difficult with all the published and online detail.

If they can't then disprove prior art and go down the route of stating that the EQT tech is different then there would be no infringement anyway and the claim is irrelevant.

Really sounds like sour grapes that a European business was awarded the gasification tech supply in their back yard.

As you say time will tell.

davidblack. Just taking an interest in facts and what is available to us all to see.

I get sick of others running down a business to benefit themselves. EQT have clearly been designing and manufacturing gasification equipment since well before Aries purchased these patents in the bankruptcy auction.

That can be proven very easily through clients already using the equipment, images on the Internet etc etc. If there is any similarities between them then EQT have prior art as stated in the RNS and the Aries patents could actually be revoked.

If there is no similarity then the whole thing is irrelevant.

I just get so fed up with hearing the unfounded, poorly researched information that comes out of those that are filtered. They are selfish and greedy people only after making a few quid at the detriment of other and the company.

No advise is given as its impossible to tell what the outcome will be. You have to respect the fact that EQT are just dealing with it and getting on with everything else. All I am doing is presenting readily available info to counter the ridiculous statements we get from certain posters which never have any thought or detailed support.

And last post from me today cause I have had enough of the law suit BS !

The US law regarding patent revocation, meaning a patent can be removed or invalidated as Eqtec put in the RNS is outlined here. As Eqtec have been using the tech at least since 2008 I would suggest that they have engineering and design drawings for the gasification equipment. This will pre date the claimed infriged patent and is therefore 'prior art' and a reason, should it be challenged, why Aries could find themselves having patents revoked.

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-happens-when-you-get-a-patent-revocation

I am convinced this will be holding the price down until it has been dropped or cleared up. But for me its an opportunity to add to my growing holding.

Have a good night !

another article dating Eqtec gasification to 1997. Article was released in 2016. Can be translated to English if your Spanish is not so good.

https://www.energias-renovables.com/biomasa/la-tecnologia-espanola-de-gasificacion-de-biomasa-20160628

The point is this. Aries are either claiming that Eqtec have infringed patents yet Eqtec can very clearly evidence Prior Art which would invalidate the patents held by Aries.

Or, the claimed infringement is irrelevant as the Eqtec gasification tech is not a copy and is their own proprietry process. Its one or the other and either way Eqtec are not infringing a patent.

Prior art or irrelevant.

After some reasearch this is my take on it.

Incase anyone is not sure here is a proactive article which states in the image that the plant opened in 2011

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/220858/eqtec-primed-to-become-one-stop-shop-for-waste-to-energy-projects-220858.html

according to US law Prior art is any evidence that your invention was already publicly known or available, in whole or in part, before the effective filing date of your patent application.

https://henry.law/blog/what-is-prior-art/

The following article referencing Eqtec Iberia gasification tech used on the Movialsa project in 2008 and then to be used on the Bulgarian project completed in 2014.

http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/10229/biomass-gasification-plant-in-bulgaria-to-use-ge-technology

Prior Art !

we should be seeing the interim results for the first 6 months to end of June.

Kind of looking forward to the forward looking statement.

Last year they were released by 10th September. So not long to wait. Perhaps we will have a new contract before then ? Who knows.

Piscio, that's only my take. Doesnt mean its right. But EQT have aggressively defended it and really seem to know their stuff.

I would imagine that with further preliminary works completed a better finance package will be available. If they have to raise 20% of the capex equity that would be around £50m. Doing that at a higher SP than today considering the current undervaluation based upon NPV and MCap at just 3%, it would be nice to think that capital could be raised at 20p and therefore only place and additional 250m shares in to the pot.

There are various scenarios. 20p is a 300% upside from here and would still only represent circa 13% of the Khemmiset NPV so not an impossible ask.

If that was the scenario we could then end up with around 1bn shares in issue but what would the value or MCap be for a producing Potash mine with the figures shown to date.

Regardless of whether they have to raise 20 or 40% at 10p or 20p there is every chance that by the time production is reached Emmerson could be a £1bn business and there is every chance that will result in a 15 - 25 x SP appreciation from this level.

Its likely that as the market catches on the SP and MCap will start to correct in line with fair value for pre-production potash as mentioned in one of the recent interviews, on the ASX this is 33% average of NPV, we are at 3.3%.

Fundraise timing will be critical to minimise dilution, so we should expect a greater campaign to promote EML in order to get thebSP appreciation and provide shareholder value.