We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Oh yes, there will indeed be a report.....It'll go something like "flew out first class, so that I could be in with all of the other movers and shakers.......had a good lunch.....got the limo to the hotel....checked into my presidential suite....had a good dinner.....met some movers and shakers, had a chat about out solution for boiling kettles in the desert.....they all nodde enthusiastically, and then all had to go to the loo at the same time ...funny, never saw them again.......went back to the presidential suite....ordered supper......awoke in the morning....had a nice breakfast......met some more blokes at some do or other, mentioned in passing that we were developing a thing that takes hydrogen out of something, they seemed really interested, but then all saw someone that they all desperately needed to speak to...they never came back.....then it was lunchtime....and very nice it was too......Spoke to a few blokes about some joint ventures, and we all laughed about how way back in the good old days you could pull the wool over peoples eyes with a good old MOU, but now you have to go through all of the palava of pretending that you're actually going to do business with someone...Time for dinner...and very nice it was too.....went down to the piano bar, pressed the flesh a bit with the movers and the shakers.......all in all a very successful trip.....all I now need to do is actually get some bugger to actually buy one of our so called commercially viable products on remotely commercial terms and we're all laughing (and not just me...hahahahah!)
As the saying goes...."there are none so blind as those who will not see"......This thing is being manipulated, plain and simple. This isn't a case of the price rising because the world's getting moist about AFC, it's simply that someone is strategically nudging the price up in order to hit a pre determined target by a certain date at someone's behest...Who that may be is the big question............
The fundamentals haven't changed, so why has there been an improvement in the share price....I have a feeling that 22 pence and 16 December might just be relevant for something or other.....any thoughts anyone?
B3
Don't start all that nonsense again! You know that you made up the bit about me not understanding how a blinking fuel cell works, simply as a smoke screen to mask the fact that you couldn't come up with a valid explanation of the phrase "cumulative output" even though you said you had spoken to a bloke who knew.....maybe he told you something you didn't want to hear.....The simple fact is that what was originally touted as an on demand supply is now reliant on some form of battery storage medium on order to deliver the same result. Basically, the product now being marketed bears no relation to the product that we all got suckered into believing would be the future. I would ask the question, at what point did the company know that its technology didn't work as being promoted, and at what point did they come clean to the shareholders.... The simple answer is a long time ago, and never, which the continue to get away with simply because they are continually defended to the hilt by apologists such as you who can see no wrong in what isn't being achieved, and are simply quite happy to be invaded with a wire brush by the company and its overpaid CEO or whatever he decides to be this week.
Heath
Or alternatively the cell can only act as a trickle charger and is incapable of meeting nameplate targets for instantaneous charge without the use of a whacking great battery buffer……definition of cumulative output (as per the ABB fanfare that prefaced the 32.0 m giveaway)?
Mc Stock......The king of wishful thinking......now tell me....how did the market react to the supposedly successful deployment of the ABB unit last year.....you know, the one that resulted in the £2.0M giveaway......
Pommy
To be absolutely fair, maritime is probably the only place where a fuel cell application might actually work, simply because of the relatively steady state requirement.....In all other circumstances, its all starting to look a bit chocolate fireguard.....
Heath
Just had a look at the link.....on the picture of the ship, are those all of the battery packs that the ship would need if it were to rely on a fuel cell for propulsion?
I say it again......once a fuel cell is reliant on a battery array to deliver the charge, why have the fuel cell at all, simply cut out the middle man, that avoids the need to use renewable energy to crack ammonia to get the hydrogen out that you put into a fuel cell to trickle charge a battery.....why not just trickle charge the battery?
Adastra
You won't get an answer on this board, I can assure you, simply because the answer to the question you pose doesn't suit the narrative.
No, it's not in the slightest bit green. The only truly green way is by electrolysis, but that's about as far of being commercially viable as a fuel cell.....which isn't very, is it......
McStockCheque
If the tech is revolutionary, and everyone who wants it will be beating a path to the company's door to buy / lease the wonder product, why on earth would the company's share price be affected by the performance of it's peers?
Maybe I'm having a bit of a senior moment, but can someone please explain the relevance of the statement that the cracker uses only 5 percent of the electricity that an electrolyser does.........they are two completely different processes, and its a bit like comparing apples with pears.....
Ttny…….fine rhetoric….except no one ever really challenges me on fact……as for flip flop, nope, same cynic I’ve always been, just had a bit of a laugh seeing whether it was possible to put a positive spin on things, I quickly ran out of steam…
B3…..The fact that I see a flaw in the Speedy deal doesn’t mean any kind of flip flop. As is always the case, if there’s a flaw in the company line then I’ll expose it…..the fact that you don’t like the fact that someone’s saying that things may not actually be as presented is your problem, and not mine….how about this….if you don’t like my hypothesis on why possibly we only hold 25% of the JV maximum, perhaps you could come up with your own reasoned argument.
And, for the avoidance of doubt, it not a case of “my way or no way” it’s just that no one ever puts up a valid counter argument……
Surf
I fail to see why they should anticipate making a loss. The units purchased from AFC will sit on the balance sheet, and unless they are a complete dog, then the depreciation / impairment shouldn’t be that excessive, and all other costs should be variable and in reality should only be as a marginal extra cost to speedy who should be looking at using their existing infrastructure to deliver in the early days in smh case. . Even of the assets are brought into trading stock, rather than as fixed assets, the only P&L hit will be the impairment.
Just seems odd that someone seems keen to be able to group relieve losses when in reality there shouldn’t be any .
Surf
So you know what group relief is? It’s all to do with the ability to set losses in a subsidiary against profits in other parts of the group……if Speedy want 75% in order to have group relief available to them, doesn’t that kind of imply that they aren’t realistically expecting to make……a profit?
Might be good for Speedy, but certainly not good for AFC if viewed in this context…..bit like the ABB discount really where there are all sorts of hidden incentives that only come to light once the initial “woo hoo” factor has died down…
Surf
You’re wrong….the PSC notification states that speedy asset owns over 75% of the shares. Speedy asset isn’t an spv set up for the purposes of this venture, so by definition, the speedy group must in some form own 75% of the shares. Read the notification for clarity…..and I do agree that the agents acting for the JV partners wouldn’t have got it wrong, so I’m afraid it looks like we do indeed own less than 26%…….
Surf…..are you having a laugh!
They aren’t HIS forms, they’re forms that need to be submitted by the JV company which, as of this moment in time we apparently we hold less than 26 per cent of. So you would be quite happy for him to cot comply with a legal requirement then….on that basis I presume you’d be quite happy if he failed to comply with the need to inform the markets of price sensitive developments…but then again you probably are, because the only ones withheld would be those relating failure to meet targets, and as we know, these events are just allowed to wither on the vine in the hope that they’re simply forgotten….
If he wants to go on a beano at your expense, you’re quite happy to be happy with it, but don’t expect others to share your enthusiasm, because we all know what’s come out of all of his beanos before……you could square it, cube it or whatever and you’d still and up with the same number…..zilch!