Member Info for mjallen

"There really is no bottom being set here for the z-list offload, they couldn’t even wait for the consolidation, " Not sure how that stacks up with your comment C909

# of Trades 37

Vol Sold 3,579,920

Vol Bought 78,908,993

Yes Pat I do if it helps.

Otherwise why invest in the company.

Thanks Steamy,

At least my two horses will be still running on the AIM racetrack from 8am to 4.30pm tomorrow and hopefully every market day after that.

I don't see a problem with the tech just its return on capital investment to produce energy. Compared with NS gas and oil that is. It just needs more taxation on those two products to even up the playing fields. On a separate note. There is a million pound tomato vertical farm in suffolk that has had to mothball its growing facility because of high energy costs. If it had an EQTEC or PHE plant feeding its energy and waste CO2 for plant growth. Its initial investment cost could be spread across the tomato purchase price and not reliant on wholesale energy markets.

Pat

You still haven't come up with any names.

So try Comtherm Ltd Can you recommend them. Here is an extract from their site.

This customer approached us looking to develop an energy-efficient system for their waste management business. The bespoke combustion system that the customer wanted to achieve would use a pyrolysis method for heating waste products and the absence of oxygen produces syngas that could be fired back into the burner to burn the remaining waste. Their self-sufficient solution would require our expertise to manufacture a unique system that could operate on syngas and withstand temperatures of 900 - 1200 degrees.

This system is focused around repurposing the by-product where the customer can use the initial product as a fuel to burn and create gases that will then burn the secondary product. With the aim for producing zero emissions, this can be achieved when burning at 900+ degrees.

After communications with the customer, we gained the full scope of the project and understood the customer's requirements and capabilities with their current site layout.

With this combustion system being at high risk for explosions, it must be ATEX-approved which involves the planning of zones and identifying the equipment used within these areas.

Following the completion of manufacturing and commissioning this system, we knew that the customer wanted to get further site support to ensure optimum running efficiency. We continue to work closely with this customer to achieve the best functioning thermal oxidiser for their needs.

Our leading team of technical engineers have provided support throughout this development, installation and ongoing running with technical advice to optimise the system in achieving the best efficiency.

But as I only deal with special electrical engineering solutions I bow to your oil and gas engineering experience.

You say your paying their wages try being a bit more proactive with your employees then.

My employees always welcomed advice when I saw it was needed.

"There’s lots of capable contractors out there. If you want them. Don’t be told any different."

Pat, Name some of your capable contractors then.

Or better still send Paul Emmett a list. I'm sure that he could do with some help.

Personal recommendation goes a long way in construction or engineering.

Yes Boffin I do believe we are.

With regard to value it will be materials used and man hours expended on production so far. Less any prepayments made so far. I know that for a fact as I had a claim similar to this with one of my three companies I owned on a government contract where the builder went bust. In that case the government paid me direct to keep the project running.

"I’ve been in oil and gas engineering all my life and this is not difficult if you really want it done."

So Pat when will you be supplying candidates to build another TCC from scratch.

It seems to me that a vote against would just send the company into administration. You do know that preferential creditors get paid first. And that includes workers wages followed by IRS and possibly any workers pension funds. Last time I looked BOD are classed as workers. So I see no point in destroying what assets in volume of shares held even at a paper loss just to be vindictive against certain directors.

Taking on board your post Boffin,

I took a look at the summary of assets for Contracts/work in Progress. Book value stated was £1,317.000 estimated to realise value was nil. So I don't see much chance of the TCC being finished.

Hi Bert,

I just had a look at the list of company creditors holding amounts owing against M Dryers and PHE doesn't appear on that list. I would assume that any monies owed or part produced work in progress would have made PHE a creditor if they gave M.Dryers some form of deposit. I could be wrong of course and the liquidators may well give PHE the work in progress TCC currently made to date.

What is interesting Croc.

Is that 10 years ago EQTEC was trading at 30 to 35 p a share selling their tec instead of trying to be a plant builder. I didn't see a problem in obtaining old sites to rebuild into the new processes. Much like finding an old Ferrari in a barn that needs a lot of work time and money to bring it back up to new. Only to find that the 100K spent on the project Auctions out at 25 million. That I doubt will follow through here . However the rise of town gas over a 150 years ago resulted in 1062 individual plants that were subsequently bought out and turned into the state supplier known as British Gas. If the requirement is to cut out burning coal worldwide. New improved tec such as the product we hold here must be in the running.

That is my understanding as well.

You end up with 1 share per 1000 but at the same value as your 1000 shares were.

I much prefer the the way the company is going back to their core routes as engineering techs and not wholesale plant builders. Plus swapping debt for shares as it keeps the the company alive.

Unless you wish the company to fold and you lose out totally just to pee of the BOD.

I do wonder if my other holding in PHE is making the same mistake in going down the plant building road after they have a demo unit up and running in Wales. Only time will tell.

Interesting to note.

No sellers today so far.

Just buyers possibly rounding up their holdings.

A good Link VH but it doesn't stop future development of an H2 economy it just curtails it until costs come down. With regard to this company and PHE I wasn't interested in large scale H2 production but more interested in small localised plants feeding local areas with Electricity using current landfill waste that cannot be recycled. Much like the Town gas plants that grew into 1062 individual sites before being nationalised ito British gas

As the link states

The consortium — which included Raffinerie Heide, Danish power firm Ørsted and French utility EDF’s German hydrogen development arm Hynamics — has cited high construction costs as the reason for its decision.

“A project must be economically viable, and this was unfortunately not the case in this instance. We therefore arrived at the logical conclusion,” said Jörg Kubitza, managing director of Ørsted in Germany, in a press statement.

“For Ørsted, there is no doubt that hydrogen will play an important part in decarbonizing German industry — but the associated costs must be reasonable and a market needs to be established.”

R on R

You can add the German government and BMW to your list of supporters for Hydrogen power.

Or perhaps its VH becoming the next Messiah on world energy solutions to counter the use of fossil fuels.

Personally I just rounded up my holdings to 3.5 million with a paper loss that I can afford to totally lose if it goes T,s up.

Gunster

This was the last schedule from the July Newsletter which is now in delay.

"The building in Bridgend will be ready for occupation next month and the Feedstock Testing Unit is well into its manufacture and should be installed in the autumn.

"So the person who has dealt with patent claims for other companies in the past and was dealing with the claim filed by GetGo is now leaving the company."

Bert, I was under the impression that the company has Patent insurance cover which I assume will require the the use of the insurance companies lawyers.

Veolia will not be interested in a DMG plant whilst all their investment is in the following plants

Non-recyclable non-hazardous waste is transported to incineration plants or landfills. The incineration process produces energy in the form of steam which can either supply district or industrial heating networks, or be converted into electricity using turbines.

The electricity generated is used to power the national distribution network. Veolia captures the gas generated by the fermentation of organic waste in its landfills. This biogas can be directly delivered to a distribution network, used to produce electricity through turbines or engines, or used as fuel for vehicles.

Veolia operates 63 household waste incineration plants and 53 non-hazardous waste landfills equipped with biogas recovery systems.

So unless we are going back over the last 100 years and building 1062 town gas plants that were nationalised and converted into British Gas. The chance of the DMG plants being a mainstay of Hydrogen production is for the birds.

Alkin

Try this link for a picture of the TCC that is currently at M Dryers building which is in Administration plus some pictures of Welsh Demo site.

https://www.powerhouseenergy.co.uk/powerhouse-energy-newsletter-july-2023-2/

I agree Boffin.

Perhaps the following is an answer to why the challenge is being made.

An award-winning collaboration between a recycling business and a university will reduce the waste going to landfill and generate valuable bi-products in the process with the help of Mitchell Dryers.

Recycling Lives and the University of Central Lancashire (Uclan) have found a way of heating up the shredded plastic residue from scrap cars to create gas that can be used to generate energy. The process also creates a carbon residue which could be used, for example, as a soil improver.

We were a natural partner for the project given our unique UK expertise in high temperature thermal treatment systems. Once Recycling Lives and Uclan had carried out laboratory trials on small material samples, we helped take the project to the next stage by designing and building a pilot scale plant that enables 50 to 100 kilos of material to be pyrolysed per hour.

I also remember KR saying that the company that makes the TCC will not use DMG tech for their own process. Perhaps that's why the third parties are now bringing the claim.

As far as everyone suggesting the tech doesn't work then how come it was supplying electricity to the campus microgrid if it wasn't working.