Member Info for Mumbles2021

Eloro, I’m very sure there is going to be an incredibly interesting RNS Monday (or Tuesday) absolutely no chance that Amvest would hold a webinar with the current status only to digest or discuss. It would last less than 10 minutes. Roll on Monday (or Tuesday!)

Theorist, i believe i may actually agree with you. Re your statement “Also what you think is the last 30 minutes of trading almost certainly isn’t. You are looking at when the transactions are reported, not carried out”. This is definitely what happened with the 105 close and subsequent price monitoring exercise this week. Pre is at a state where charting isnt and cant tell the story.

I would forget the chart, there is nothing that can be done, that financing won't fix.

Charles, as always in your posts, entirely possible. But not all business are reliant on government funding, PRE is certainly standalone. The amount being muted, being barely 5% of the total required CAPEX. Yes, it would be potentially helpful from a image perspective. But it doesn’t alter the business case.

You are being less discrete and more open about your motives now. Another tree shake?. Let’s be honest, liquidity in PRE shares has all but dried up. None for sale and non to buy. !!! So far 20,000 in the first two hours of trading today!!

Prenut, it is the fact that the sale exceeded the predetermined volatility limits that triggered the price monitoring exercise. Doesnt matter whether the sale was for 10 or 100,000 shares, the procedure is the same. It is entirely possible (in this case probable) that an agreed volume at an agreed price had been transacted off book and this was the balance of the transacted volume. I see plenty of complaints that sell on closing drops the price dramatically. Nobody shouts then.

Hi Prenut, it is a two part auction process, if conditions not met after the first auction, a second auction is held. The process is described in this link https://aim-watch.com/project/price-monitoring-extensions-explained/

DP i had seen that study before, regurgitating old news, or charging the government twice for the same hours??

DP you are actually correct in this. Only useful if the holdings are monitored over a period of time. Unsurprisingly, quote a lot of people have been doing that. Telling a really interesting story. And In anycase why should you have the monopoly on talking ******

Theorist, three of the partners in the Humber zero carbon project are PX group, owners of Saltend Chemical park, Triton energy, owners of the power station located on Saltend Chemical park and providing all the power to industries located within the park, and Equinor, who are well progressed in developing a blue hydrogen production facility within the park. What makes you think that the power supplied to Pensana also located in the park will not have the same source as all the other companies

Tornadotony, not sure it will happen by 2026 (it might), but it is a fascinating project Equinor to produce blue hydrogen at Saltend, from natural gas, with CO2 from the project being captured and delivered into exhausted natural gas fields in the North Sea all located very close to the Humber and Salted. To quote “THE HUMBER AND TEESSIDE JOIN FORCES TO FORM THE EAST COAST CLUSTER AND DECARBONISE ALMOST HALF OF UK INDUSTRIAL CLUSTER EMISSIONS”

DP along with Theorist need to be very careful. It is entirely possible that their sponsors may get extreme embarrassed if they carry on. If the two of them dig deep enough, they will find exactly what happens to people who embarrass them. As a hint, they may want to have a look at the everso slightly murky history of beach mining in India. Which despite tje LCM report has extremely suspect ESG credentials

DP, LCM are not determining anything. They were funded. Or rather Dr Higgins, via LCM was funded to produce a report. As he has on umpteen occasions in the past.

Theorist, i assume by Mumble drum you are referring to myself. if you look through my posts. there has never been any up-ramping. only responses to counter deliberate down-ramping. PRE stock stands on its own. if it wasn't for likes of yourself and DP, i wouldn't comment.

Neither of you, if you are 2, rather than one person, have any good reason to comment on this board, as you don't have any stock, or as far as i can see any good reason deliberately down-ramp PRE other than to affect the perception of PRE compared to stock that you do own. i certainly don't see any altruistic merit in trying to protect PRE investors from themselves. There are no technical rules to stop you doing what you are doing, moral yes, technical no, to prevent this. Consequently your comments require countering with facts, for which the sources will always be added.

DP-orbits, before you go into pedant mode on me, that should be “Lockwood advisors” not “Lockwood associates”

DP-orist, one of the participants in the Pershing nominee account (owned and operated by Bank of New York is Lockwood associates (owned and operated by Bank of New York). Doesn’t prove anything, but certainly very interesting. Of course because they are held within a another nominee account, nobody can tell what proportion of the total Pershing nominee account they hold. Very reminiscent of a Russian doll. Just saying!!!!

THEOPUNTER: please read again “ 1) as aresult of events changing the breakdown of voting rights and on the
basis of information disclosed by the issuer”

Theorist/DP, I believe you are one and the same, or at least a double act. Between you, you have answered your own question this fact is that participant shareholders in a nominee account have no voting rights, which is a huge bone of contention. But that's another discussion. To quote from your own cut and paste, section 2.

A TR-1 is only applicable if changes the voting rights. At the owner I am fighting to get my own say and I am not happy about, I've told you at least 1/2 a dozen times. Don't think I have looked into it

2) reaches, exceeds or falls below an applicable threshold in (1) as a
result of events changing the breakdown of voting rights and on the
basis of information disclosed by the issuer in accordance with
¦ DTR 5.6.1 Rand ¦ DTR 5.6.1A R;
and in the case of an issuer which is not incorporated in the United Kingdom
a notification under (2) must be made on the basis of equivalent events and
disclosed information.

Re the 5% issue you keep raising DP, just because you keep raising it, doesn't change the facts. It doesn't apply under certain circumstances. Which some people, probably a lot cleverer than yourself fully understand

he's a LEG-END in his own LUNCHTIME.....!!!!!!

Theorist get back under your rock and cuddle up to DP. You deserve each other. Very happy to have an intelligent conversation with anyone, you too are just tiresome. Hamilton and Charles are at least able to make an argument. For which it is possible make a reasoned counter.