Member Info for Boffin

Not really telling us anything significant we didn't already know.

Apart from the usual optimistic soundbites the last but one sentence reads "However, the team on the ground in Australia continue the work at site without interruption."

I suppose it is too much to expect to be told what they are doing , what the objectives are and when we might get the results of this "work" ! A total information vacuum looking forwards!

There's an announcement on the Kalamazoo website re buying Northern Stars Ashburton project
https://kzr.com.au/wp-content/uploads/austocks/kzr/2020_06_22_KZR_12164ee2e81c56f88a530bb01e7d61c3.pdf

Its nothing to do with ECR

Sorry Monky but your maths are a bit out. 0.7 cubed is circa 350 litres.

However it raises an interesting point. The physical properties of ammonia ( as opposed to its chemical properties) are very similar to LPG. Essentially the same storage cylinders will be suitable for both and road transport tankers for LPG up to 50,000 already exist and of course smaller ones are used in everything from barbecues, cars to 2,000l domestic storage tanks. The key thing though is these tanks are relatively lightly pressurised to about 300 psi (2000k pascal if you prefer metric) to keep ammonia liquified up to around 50C. Hydrogen on the other hand cannot be liquified at anything close to ambient temperatures. This means that even at enormous pressures the kgs of Hydrogen (and thus the energy content) per Cubic meter is much lower than ammonia. And of course the storage containers for say circa 4000 psi for Hydrogen have much thicker walls and massively heavier than those for LPG making distribution much less efficient. An interesting discussion paper on the issues of bulk Hydrogen distribution and fuel cells can be found Here https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-carriers-bulk-storage-and-transport-hydrogen-webinar-text-version

Hydrogen produced close to where it is used and where take off broadly matches the rate of production may well be feasible. Many of you will be aware of PHE who are pursuing this route. However occasional production of Hydrogen at very high rates eg when there is excess green energy available will have huge problems of storage and distribution.

For me the most interesting option to utilise excess/peak green energy generation isn't electrolysis to generate hydrogen. There are numerous issues re storage of large amounts of hydrogen. Compressing it to reduce the volume of storage is very energy intensive and old style gasometers aren't popular from a planning and environmental perspective. Actually the easiest and most straightforward use of hydrogen from "spare" green energy is to inject it directly into the gas network which would reduce the CO2 emissions on combustion. At up to 20% dilution it would have no impact on the engineering etc of domestic boilers and other uses.

Apart from batteries and flow cells for me direct synthesis of ammonia by electrolysis is a much more interesting option for "spare" energy. There are a number of improved methods to do this under development ( try googling ammonia electrolytic synthesis) and to me some of AFC's and Denoras competencies suggest they may have the know how to make a product for this purpose. Until now the Haber process ( or variations thereof) for synthesis of ammonia has been economically more efficient than electrolysis. However it releases large amounts of CO2 and the availability of "cheap" excess green electricity ( currently we pay solar and wind farms to turn off rather than overload the grid) may well make direct electrolytic ammonia synthesis competitive. And as we all know ammonia is much easier to store and transport plus it has a very high energy density per cubic meter than even highly compressed hydrogen.

The website says the 160kw system will be "available" from June 2020. Now whether that means they have built one or that its available to order from then I'm not really sure. I certainly hope they have built one.I wouldn't want to be sending the first one ever built out to the first major customer without some significant testing. Plus I'd want it available to demonstrate to other prospective customers.

Re the solid membrane whilst it may indeed be useful for at least heavy transport the website makes the claim that it will be able to supply 2Mw from a 40ft container. Given that cars capable of accepting charge at 150Kw are now coming on stream (and 250kw is being touted for the future) this could provide the necessary power for a dozen such cars at a time. This could provide the equivalent of a 10 minute "splash and dash" and substantially solve the range uncertainty/delay issue. For the grid to supply an additional 2Mw ( let alone multiples thereof) to motorway services or other high use /remote sites would necessitate a massive upgrade. AFC's high power module could provide this relatively easily, rapidly and at much lower capital cost.

A while since I've looked in here but the first real indication of significant interest prompted me.

The question suddenly arising in my mind though is what is the rate at which they could produce 160kw units if others suddenly feel more positive now that Acciona are convinced its worth a trial.

Based on this RNS it looks like circa 6-8 months from order to on site delivery when just one is wanted

Just for instance ( I know in your dreams Boff!) if in the next six months they were to get a dozen companies of various types wanting to run a trial how long would it take AFC to build them? The one they should complete this month has taken nearly a year to make , but OK thats the first and there will have been many learnings. I know they have been preparing with Denora and advanced plastics to get capacity for the actual electrodes and cells. but thats only part of sourcing and specialist equipment, pipe cutting, welding and assembly to deliver the final unit.

Making multiple units brings substantial new challenges both operationally and in cash flow. I hope they are well prepared for the challenges that success will bring!

Hi Talkingsense.

A JV is probably inevitable but the less hard data ECR have then the JV partner will demand a substantial majority share to cover the risk.

Is that the best way to get optimal value for ECR ? We don't have to fully prove up the deposit to the highest of the JORC reserve classifications to give a significant risk reduction and thus a better negotiating hand. Which brings me back to the question of why did we go to the expense of building a lab/pilot extraction facility and then not use it?

I haven't bothered looking here for a while as the gap between Craig's optimistic pronouncements and something actually tangible seems to get ever longer.

Anyway he may or may not be right about the mined and refined value of gold in the ground in Cresswick but bear in mind two things
1 We're not even close to the most basic JORC resource estimate let alone a probable reserve. Until we have that Craig is welcome to his opinion but no serious mining company is going to pay even one cent on the dollar for his views. We need to get much more hard data from drilling or small scale bulk extraction.
2 There are numerous methods of assessing the value of minerals in the ground ( as opposed to their mined and refined value) published by various Schools of Mines and Geological institutions. They take into account how remote the resource is, political stability and reliability of rule of law, skilled labour, power and transport availability plus of course specific issues of extraction of given resource etc. Depending on these minerals typically in the ground have a value between 0.4 and 2.5% of the final refined value provided there is a JORC probable reserve assessment available.

Fortunately Cresswick looks quite good on many of these factors ( compared to say Siberia) however until there is far better data its little more than opinion and guesswork. Quite simply if we want more value from Cresswick then we need more data and I can't understand why we are so slow in getting it. They even built a laboratory/ pilot extraction facility which doesn't seem to e getting much use at the moment. I am really puzzled as to what Craig's strategy and game plan to get optimal value from our licences actually is.

Yet again the message is the Jam Jar looks even bigger than it did last time. So ECR are now spending ever more on consultants and modelling to see if there is any chance of there being any Jam but are making no promises. Discussions re selling parts of the Jar are underway.

Apologies the next size unit is 160Kw ( not 120 as I put below). Perhaps offering 400kw peak output with the right smoothing battery. Much more sensible for supermarkets, commercial car parks etc.

Perhaps this could explain why no orders yet? I know there can be an additional battery to smooth peaks and troughs but even then say 40-50Kw is available for a couple of hours at a stretch you cant rapid recharge many cars on that at once. And a 10' container is quite a chunk of kit for a relatively modest output. And I don't think that allows for the space needed for say gas storage or an ammonia cracker and source tank. I'm not sure if the smoothing battery is in the container or not.

Its a nice sized demo unit but for example how many supermarkets will want this in their car parks. Lose perhaps 6-10 car park spaces for the kit and ancillaries to charge perhaps 4 cars at at a time at best.

I suspect many will wait until at least the 120kw kit is available ( with perhaps 240-300kw peak output with a suitable battery). Then you can charge a reasonable number of cars at once.

And I'm not trying to be negative, I'm still invested here but those are the facts of the car charger as I see them. Actually I think there is perhaps more chance of hearing progress on the membrane product that I do the charger in the short term at least.

Hi BumbleB, and a happy New Year to you.

What did Jim Gibson actually say? I can find nothing in any written company announcements to confirm this.

Whilst electrode chemistry isn't my specialisation I find it a bit odd for them to go back to using Platinum. Its so easily poisoned as a catalyst by impurities in the gas stream. Thats why many fuel cells which use platinum need ultrapure gases as feed stock.

Its a bit ancient (2013) but the following statement was made in an RNS dated 29 July that year

"AFC Energy (AIM: AFC), the fuel cell energy developer for industry, is pleased to announce that its revolutionary low-cost, platinum-free fuel cell electrode has set a new Company longevity and endurance record by delivering continuous electrical power for 12 months. "

I haven't seen anything to contradict this since then.

I obviously don't know what deal W2T were on but I guess ( and its only a guess!) that they may have spent quite a bit of money working with Toyota and other Far East " Targets" as well as the more local ones. Expenses for several people can rack up quite quickly in that part of the world.

Perhaps this deal is structured with both this element in mind ( ie effectively capitalising expenditure to date) plus recognising whatever revenue W2T would have got out of every deal is now to be shared with current PHE shareholders.

Unfortunately, unless this is clarified in the merger documents, it will always be a bit opaque.

Perhaps I've missed something but having spent some time looking back to 2017 and I can find no disclosed detail of what Waste2Tricity were to get out of the commercial arrangement with PHE announced in the annual report for that year.
I presume there must be some form of royalty/ fee/ whatever for all the work and introductions W2T did with eg Toyota and Wrightbus but I can find no declared specifics.

Why oh why it missed me by I don't know but I guess this merger means that all the complex calculation of exactly how much each would get out of any specific installation is eliminated and contributes to the overall business profitability. Much to the benefit of simplified and smooth running of both business's and for the negotiations with customers in various parts of the world where the underlying economics may vary considerably.

Stokey12. My understanding of the RNS was that the combined entity was being valued at 60% PHE 40% W2T. That means that the PHE's nearly 2Bn shares currently in issue will be 60% of the final total in issue,. Therefore the total in issue will have to be circa 3.3Bn.

Perhaps the RNS could be read otherwise, it isn't a model of clarity, but how do you understand it?

Assuming this deal goes through there are going to be around 3.3Bn shares in issue. A rather extraordinary number for such a low market cap company. I wonder if they will take the opportunity to do something like a 10:1 consolidation to get some more "sensible" numbers in issue.

The other issue is exactly who will own the 40% of the resulting business? If one person or "group" end up owning more than 30% then they will have to make a takeover offer for the whole business. And at the moment some of those involved could buy PHE for what is to them "pocket change". And I mention group because if there is any form of " common interest or purpose" between those holding the 40% (even though none individually own 30%) then Stock Exchange rules may still require a bid. eg they will have enough votes to have effective control of the composition of the board of directors. Since none of this was mentioned in the RNS I am currently presuming that this has been taken into account is putting the deal together. But as others have others have commented this RNS leaves much unsaid and we all know about details and devils!

Whilst I don't dispute the "clarity" point made in the RNS PHE shareholders perspective it seems to me that this is at least as much to do with the owners of W2T converting the asset into something much more readily realiseable over the next few years. As others have commented it was difficult to understand what W2T did which added value and thus how much the assets of W2T might actually be worth in a sale.

The other problem is that this will leave the owners of W2T with a very dominant shareholding in the resulting company. It depends exactly how this is structured and what their intentions are but could almost be understood as a kind of reverse takeover of PHE by W2T.

The timing of the motor show is potentially very interesting. On the AFC website it states the HydroX-Cell (L160)TM 160kw system in a 40' shipping container is due to be available by June 2020. Quite an opportune launch event for it.

Most reputable scientific and technical journals have a peer review process. That is when an article is submitted for publication its sent to a number (usually 1-3) other experts in the field for review and possible amendment suggestions. They aren't always that quick to respond as they have other commitments. Having been through this quite a few times myself it typically takes 3-12 months from initial submission until the article actually appears in print even once accepted for publication it can often be several editions later before the article appears. The scientific publication process isnt at all like newspaper publishing. I just had a look at a few editions of the highly prestigious journal "Nature". Hardly any articles get published faster than 4 months from initial submission and many take longer.