Member Info for stokey12

ShareNewb95 In relation to your 12.00 post the short answer is Yes. The reason for the difference between the amount of electricity generated and the amount that can be exported is that some of the electricity generated is used to run the DMG unit.

Loosegoose - In relation to your 11.44 post I will have to tell a white lie in order to register for the research portal on the cenkos website as it does not allow retail investors to register. If INFA does not reach breakeven this calendar year it will probably manage it next year.

In the absence of any official announcement does anybody have a rough and ready estimate of how much revenue is being generated by H & W it must be close to breakeven I would have thought.

muscorum In relation to your 10.56 post it is also worth noting that the gasification process used by Air Products is not the same as PHE will be using.

After today's RNS does anybody know of any reason why the first DMG unit will not be built triggering the rollout of further units.

Bananaman2 In relation to your 12.34 post I think the market like the involvement of Peel. I note that ever since Peel became more involved at the turn of the year the share price and as a consequence the MCap has gone up. The greater part of the increase in the MCap came about with the new shares to 'pay' for the takeover of W2T. I suspect that the low MCap for EQT is caused by the market not being convinced about the route to profitability with EQT. Once the revenues start coming in there is likely to be a rerating.

Leedsohn In relation to the two question you asked in your 10.48 post I find it interesting that they were the first questions you asked.

1. Yes
2. 2022

Desmond45 In relation to your 09.02 post if you had been following the posts on this board you would know there is nothing to update on. The claim has been issued which we already know but nothing has progressed past that. There will be nothing to update until shortly after 8 October at the earliest.

LedZep - In relation to your 10.04 post thanks for the update on what is going on the ground. I am expecting more substantive work to start next month when Q4 starts.

The main takeaway I have from the RNS is that very few if any of these new shares are likely to be flipped. All the buyers would seem to be investors and not traders. I am therefore not certain of the market reaction in the normal case I would expect a drop in the share price to near the issue price but I am not sure that will happen.

Norfolk95 - In relation to your 13.10 post all we can tell is that no return of service has been filed. So there is no evidence that EQT has been served. It is possible that the return has not been filed.

jessielivermore In relation to your 12.06 post while you are right a substantial block refusing to approve the resolution would be a shot across the bows. In any event I am not sure that it would be possible to get enough people to either vote against or abstain.

The following is a text from the Interim Head of Marketing and Communictions at INFA in response to an email from me about a trading update.

'Thank you for your email.

We normally issue a detailed trading update twice a year; once on the close of the half year on 31 January and the other at the time of announcement of the annual results on closing of the accounts at 31 July each year.

We are now in the process of completing our annual report which will contain a detailed trading update. An announcement on the annual results together with a trading update will be made as soon as they have been finalised and signed off by the auditors and the Board of Directors.'

I think that is a polite no to any trading update before the annual report. I am likely to come back to this at the AGM.

JackRussell2 In relation to your 11.21 post for my decision to abstain on resolution 7 is enough people do the same. As it is a normal resolution that would need 50.1% of the shareholdrrs to do the same.

The hearing does not start until 2.30 and the witnesses that relate to shipping are in the second group so probably will be on from about 3.30.

Craigmccollum306 In relation to your 09.12 post if you look at my 07.06 post you will see a link to the document. It is a return of service of the claim in this matter. There is no such docuument on file for EQT.

In my AGM instructions to HL I have told them to abstain on the resolution to reappoint Timothy Yeo. My reasoning being that I am not sure that his skill set is totally necessary at the present time.

When I first saw this document https://jumpshare.com/v/Tij1aZsA67bIM0M8pKYT I had a moment of panic. Then I noticed there is no return in relation to EQT. This could mean one of two things either EQT has not been served or EQT has been served but the return has not been filed. If it is the former then it would be interesting to see if Aries elects to proceed against the other to defendants only.

TakeAimFire In relation to your 03.27 post I would point out that resolution 10 is for those times when it would not be practicable to issue shares using the resolution 9 authority. As an example if one of the directors was to exercise an option buy shares without the resolution before he could exercise his option the shares would first have to be offered to shareholders. I think you will have to agree that is impracticable.

The reason for both Resolution 9 and Resolution 10 is to give the BoD maximum flexibility when doing a equity raise.

TakeAimFire In relation to your 18.21 post you are quite right about what you said in relation to resolution 10. However, resolution 9 does give power for shares to be allotted under an open offer or a rights issue to shareholders.