Member Info for Escala

I think the post recommendations support me Haggis. Nice of you to compliment Cheekboy earlier. Perhaps you should consider sounding like me too on occasion??!

Haggis, just to let you know that if you rent a car for a week you do not own it. Youa re again bending interpretation to suit your ends. I think we can all agree that renting is different to owning and it is factually incorrect to say, as you did, that Enowa own the fuel cell.

And AFC leased the system to ExE, not Enowa. As the RNS you posted says.

Were you Donald Trump's PR advisor in a previous life??

My agenda Haggis is to continue monitoring AFC as it progresses. In doing so I will comment on responses that I think misrepresent the situation. Like yours that Enowa own the system. I will say again to help you...they may be sponsoring it but there is zero confirmation that AFC have sold a system to Enowa. Please do not mislead by saying otherwise.

Thank you for your comment on my academic abilities. Such narcissistic narrative is not worthy of comment so I won't bother. Nor will I respond further to you on this matter. Other posters can decide for themselves how valid your comments are. I would simply point out that most of your guesses either never happen or are wrong. The rest is unfounded speculation.
£500m MCap lower limit is an excellent example. I often wonder what your agenda is. It is certainly not altruism.
I fully recognise that on occasion you post some excellent research.

Nonsense Haggis. Enowa may be sponsoring but show me a single piece of evidence that they own it. Your condescending narrative is designed as ever to fit your own agenda.

Haggis, I am not aware of any information to suggest that ENOWA own the AFC fuel cell system. They use it yes, but your post is misleading. No payment from Enowa to AFC has ever been declared.

....and I suppose you think men will land on Mars and climate change will be solved by the end of the year too SouthCumbria??

I think these things are already built into their current target. It's the progress upon which those original targets were mandated. They will be relieved that their current target looks slightly less unrealistic.

More uninformed utter tosh Garonne. You really are the class clown.

OK, my apologies...that wasn't immediately clear! Wish I'd realised at the time as in the context you wrote it your post made me laugh!!

I think this is institutional investment which is great.

Look at the trades Spacerat. Way more than 2m (try 14m) in two aliquots. How many PIs do you know who trade at that level?
Perhaps you could come back with a more considered post?

given the volumes of these trades there's a decent chance this is institutional investment. If so that is very good news as lack of II investment is one of the things that has held the SP back, and has also been a particular target of Bond's.

Without orders Ade you are right. And Bond will have to go. But we have been told of multiple orders in the offing. So it's an all-or-nothing bet. You have put your money on the latter and I on the former. We don't know who will be right. So why not stop the daily taunting and join the human race for a bit?

So that's why Ceres went down 2%. What utter codswallop Ade. But then you know that you malicious sod.

You take some stick Haggis, and often rightly so, but have to say that some of your research is superb.

I suggest people look at the AFRC site themselves. It's not quite as Daz describes and they collaborate with some pretty big companies eg Weir. Nothing to be concerned about here. Of course Garonne won't tell you that

How did you get that information Daz?

Garonne, you are a prime chump. Fact!

I would suggest all those who want sensible debate leave this board to those with no positive interest in AFC and let it wither on the vine. The Telegram group supports mature comment and any differences in opinion are discussed amicably.
I tend to look in here every couple of days to see if there is any news I have missed, but when did Garonne, or SimonJames or Ade 123 4 bring anything useful to the table.

This board has nothing left to offer.

Come on everyone.

It is 1.8 metric tonnes (mtonnes) NOT million tonnes.

And anyone who thinks that the weight of CO2 as a consequence of burning diesel is derived solely from diesel needs to think about where the O2 to burn it comes from. Clue...it isn't the diesel.

You are partly right Oggs. AFC should seek advice from the nomad but the nomad is there to do just that. Advise. AFC could have released a RNS. I am disappointed to hear of the deployment via bulletin boards and social media. using the RNS service is the only way to make it equitable for all investors.