Member Info for Boffin

Coincidence but I just decided to look in here for the first time in months and it appears I have missed absolutely nothing of any value. Why does anyone bother with this ?

If the photo of just over an ounce of gold in the tweet you linked to is what has just come out of the ground where we are drilling this could be quite a nice Xmas present

To observe FAT and check that AFC has the technical capability and capacity to deliver the number of units they want on time

My point is this may soon be taken out of Helicons hands by the broker who lent them the shares! The broker wants to be certain that there is enough cash in the margin account to buy back the shares they have loaned out. Assuming they are on the ball (if they aren't I'd like to know their name and I will promptly open an account) they will be watching the share order book and will act as soon as they see they are running out of the necessary number of available shares to purchase with the available cash in the margin account. That would in many instances be at 50% greater than the initial short price . Of course I don't know if that is the deal Helicon struck and they may have put up even greater collateral or got a better deal. But there will be a point at which the Broker will call the deal in to be certain that they can recover the loaned shares at no loss to themselves

Trigger the margin account on AFC shares? Normally there is a requirement for a margin account held by a broker who lent the shares to have a value 50% greater than the cost of the shares borrowed from them for short selling. This is to ensure there is always enough cash to repurchase the shares.in the case that the short seller cannot cover the loss. In this case this would be at about 18p per share. However the broker usually starts to call the deal in at a lower price point because buying , in this instance 16.5 million shares, is almost certain to drive the price even higher than the 16.5p that AFC is trading at and could easily pass 18p. A very uncomfortable wedgie!

The TCC had obviously been started and was at least at a stage that PHE had entered discussions with the liquidators re acquiring it. The RNS of 06/10 states

"In the meantime, the Company has lodged a claim for the first payment of £193,000 which was made to MDKL. In addition, PHE has also added a claim for liquidated damages and registered interest in the purchase of the already completed equipment. The Company is in possession of the alloy that was bought by its wholly owned subsidiary Plastics to Hydrogen Number 1 Ltd, for the first commercial scale of the TCC. This had previously been stored at MDKL in Carlisle but was moved earlier this year."

MJ I think we are on the same page. Currently the liquidator is projecting a worst case position to manage expectations with creditors. They usually do. However they will still be keen to get something for the TCC. What else can they do apart from paying scrap merchants to take it away? The discussion I suspect is going on is around what it may cost PHE to get it finished by AN other and a discount for no longer having performance guarantees. Then , hopefully PHE and the liquidator can come to a value for work completed to date ad to be paid by PHE on the TCC being delivered in its current state, whatever that is.

My impression a couple of months ago was that the equipment was close to being finished. If that is the case then It's possible that PHE actually owe Mitchell Driers the final installments which wouldn't normally be paid until initial testing showed that it performed to specification.

In that case the liquidator would be very keen to come to an agreement with PHE to get something for the equipment. Its probably little use to anyone else anyway. The issue for PHE will be how to get it finished and having no-one to claim against if it doesn't perform to specification.

More information on the equipment is here

https://www.nanosun.co.uk/pioneer/pioneer-hydrogen-refuelling-station

You can't steal a patent nor usurp it. What you can do is try to argue that the patent is invalid and should not have been granted. The primary grounds used are to argue lack of significant invention or novelty i.e. its an obvious extension from something already known. A secondary ground is that something similar is already marketed or used commercially even if the specific "Know how" to make it work hasn't been published.

Other issues are rarer but can include such things as not adequately documenting and recording the inventive stages including specific dates and appropriate qualified signatories. Also not realising that the USA patents procedure has different criteria (particularly with respect to dates of invention vs dates of patent application submission) to the European ones. Also tight public non disclosure prior to application is essential.

However Its actually quite rare for a granted patent to be rescinded. Usually the problems arise before its granted, during what is termed the discovery process at the patent office ( ie the search for prior art or knowledge) when objections arise or the examining patent office official has questions.

My best guess ( and I absolutely have no evidence) is that the opposition will try to argue that specific process details in the PHE patent are not significant inventions but minor extensions from what was already known. Given that the Patent Office has already decided otherwise (and here I am presuming that the portfolio of evidence presented by PHE in the initial application was compelling) then the opposition will need something very specific and at least equally compelling to have the patent rescinded.

Sorry Piltic I disagree. I think it highly likely that the contract with Mitchell dryers would have had quite specific process requirements that the equipment would be required to achieve eg temperature profiles, zone transit times, throughput etc. Certainly enough for a chartered Chemical engineer to understand the process details.

As to whether there was something uniquely or sufficiently inventive, that can be a matter of judgement. Usually though a patent office would want strong evidence that they were wrong to have initially awarded the patent.

James Myer is a chemical engineer whos photo on Linkedin is superimposed in front of our equipment at Mitchell dryers. It seems well possible to me that he is using his knowledge of our process to challenge the patent award.

To do this kind of patent successfully there are a few options. The first is to show that there was no real invention / creative step that wasn't basically obvious to those "skilled in the art" ( a phrase that crops up often in patents award and disputes) . The second option is to show that the process (or at least something very similar) has already been used commercially even though the "know how" behind it may not have been claimed or published.

At the moment Getgo has a very rough and ready website which makes a few claims about an unspecified water treatment process but shows next to nothing of substance. Its contact info appears to me to be a "hot desk" in shared office/ marketing suite on a business park. I don't yet grasp what they have technically nor what they would hope to gain by objecting except possibly some cash to fund Getgo in return for withdrawing the objection.

It really boils down to whether PHE have enough confidence in the patent application that they have demonstrated meaningful invention and that the process or one very similar has not had commercial use somewhere in the world.

In the Hiiroc process the carbon is "captured" as pure carbon black (a solid) and not released as carbon into the atmosphere. Depending on its form and purity its worth about $1000 per ton and can be used to replace other sources of carbon black which aren't all "green".

As a process Its more cost effective than steam reformation, energy "light" and has little to no adverse environmental impact.

May I suggest you take a look at https://hiiroc.com/

Since I last looked, a while ago, their website seems to have been updated .

The listed partners doesn't mention PHE and the Project list makes no mention of Ireland, either North or South. The process they describe bears considerable similarity to that of PHE but claims it as HU's own -

"In May 2021, Hydrogen Utopia commissioned the design of a chemical conversion chamber from Electron. The chemical conversion chamber, which is currently in the final design phase, will have the ability to be electrically powered by 100% renewable energy. It is anticipated that the design will be finalized and a definitive chemical conversion chamber could be ready for installation in a Hydrogen Utopia plant by late 2022."

Am I being unnecessarily concerned or is there potentially issues of conflict of interest, lack of commitment and intention of HU's supposed relationships with PHE?

Discussions to date with the vendors have also set an expectation that ECR will propose revised terms and conditions to the option.

125 Rock chip results have been received for the first batch of laboratory samples that cover the Tornado, Cyclone and part of the Holmes vein systems.

Best results include a gold equivalent of 31.3 g/t Au and 30.13 g/t Au (Holmes). 28 of the results have gold values greater than 2 g/t Au. All samples from outcrop.

Thanks Tamer, you made me think and check whether Haythorpe could take Hurricane with him ( if indeed he has totally gone - although I think he has).

I found a somewhat uncertain situation. One phrase from the initial Hurricane RNS suggest he can't have, when option is owned by ECR

"Once the option fee has been fully satisfied ECR can then exercise the option at any time prior to 30 September 2023, at its absolute discretion."

However other parts of the same RNS to me creates uncertainty eg

"If the option fee is fully satisfied and the option is exercised, the total consideration for the acquisition of Placer Gold is A$6.9mln (approximately £3.8mln), including the option fee, a further cash payment of A$200,000 payable in the event of certain milestones being reached, and a 2% net smelter royalty payable in the event the Hurricane Project is taken into production in the future, capped at £3mln.

The acquisition is subject to completion of due diligence to ECR’s satisfaction, all necessary consents, approvals and licence renewals being obtained, and the execution of formal transaction documentation (including a royalty deed and shareholders agreement). Accordingly, at this stage, ECR said, there can be no guarantee that it will obtain the option or acquire Placer Gold.

Two thigs troubled me. The opening "IF" and the final phrase "ECR said, there can be no guarantee that it will obtain the option or acquire Placer Gold."

Why? Well we have never had it confirmed that ECR has indeed even acquired the option let alone decided to exercise it. The earlier phrase "at it's sole discretion" only applies if ECR have acquired the option so maybe Haythorpe could have taken it with him after all?

Talk about the devils in the detail.

Have I missed something? Doesn't the Hurricane/ Placer Gold option to purchase expire at the end of this week?

I know an announcement cam come at any time but it's certainly cutting it fine. Perhaps the labs are again being a bit slow with the results from the samples collected in August which may give scope for an agreed extension. We should still hear something no later than next Monday

The one you refer to is with ABB and Vard in Norway for bulk shipping. The one I referenced yesterday is for container ships with ABB and Samskip in Cochin. A different project altogether and may well not involve AFC. We need to stay aware of potential competition.

Https://cleantechnica.com/2023/09/21/abb-to-provide-hydrogen-fuel-cell-propulsion-systems-for-container-ships/

Interesting article that unfortunately makes no mention of AFC. I suppose it could still be AFC's cells and ABB control systems but it would be nice to have this confirmed