Member Info for stokey12

Mullins thanks for the link it made an interesting read.

Tell me about it the last two days we had over 1700 trades today it looks like we will see over 2000 trades. In a lot of cases it is as if people are selling shares at prices which do not even cover brokers costs that does not make sense.

redleader1 In relation to your 12.16 post what makes you think that PHE has government backing. I have not seen anything to indicate that HMG are backing gasification in general or PHE in particular. You obviously have better sources than me.

From 11.29 - 11.31 there were four trades totalling 1.2m shares. I wonder if this was one buyer disguising his purhases or four different people all buying the same amount at about the same time.

stumbler in relation to your 09.19 post of 16.48 yesterday you said 'Their agency appeared to me as a way of passing any potential profits of PHE away from the Company and into W2T.' If that is not an allegation of fraud on the shareholders of PHE what was it.

expatbrat In relation to your 08.21 post I do not hold shares in VLS I have it on monitor for future investment when funds allow. However if I may query your suggestion that waste to energy does not work. PHE is developing a technology that will convert any carbon waste product into syngas. This syngas can either be used only to create electricity or using PSA convert some to 99% pure hydrogen. This processhas been validated by DNV GL a respected independent international verification company. The engineering experts at Peel Environmental are also convinced it will work. The first plant should be operational next year. I am pointing all this out to show that there is a body of opinion that converting waste to energy does work. I have read an academic paper from China that supports this view.

You correctly point to the failure of Air Products I remember reading about this. My vew is that the faikure was due not to the technology but to how it was applied. From the previous failures mytake away is that even where the process can handle mre than one waste type you should not mix waste types I think this may be where Air Products went wrong.

This Bill https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0128/20128.pdf has its second reading next week. The rest of the stages of the bill are likely to be very soon thereafter. For us the important part is from pages 233 - 238. The effect of these provisions is to allow for virtul AGMs. More worryingly if I am reading it correctly it strips members of any right to ask questions and only allows them the right to vote. I am not sue of the justification for this I am not sure that the bodies representing Institutional Investors would be too happy either.

Despite the lack of news the PHE share price is now at a five year high. This would mean that if PHE wanted to try and bring in institutional investors a placing would not dilute as many shares as it would have done in December. I do not see any reason for a placing other than to bring in new investment.

stumbler - In relation to your 17.39 this goes nowhere near the standard of evidence required for an allegation of fraud like you made in your 16.48 post. I agree that the original grant of an agency contract may not of been a wise decision but I was not a shareholder at the time so do not know the full background. W2T had previous expereince granted not sucessful of acting for waste to energy companies. They have also made connections to Peel and Toyota it is questionable if those connections would have been made without them. In relation to Peel the value of the initial 11 sites which are to be developed is a recurring £5.5m. I am not sure what the status of the discussions with Toyota is.

Stumbler In relation to your 16.48 post there is nothing in the accounts that I can see to support this suggestion. Can you provide some basis for what amounts to a suggestion of fraud which is a serious allegation to make.

Over 1600 trades in one day is this a record for this share.I note we have a new 12 month high.

jabberba I agree with your 14.44 post as far as W2T is concerned. It would cause PHE difficulties so on balance PHE shareholders should think long and hard before voting against.

jabberba - In relation to your 14.12 post the shareholders who bought in as part of the pre IPO might want to know why there has been no IPO and what has changed that means an IPO is no longer possible.

Piltick In relation to your 14.02 post as of 26 June 2019 according to a filing with companies house W2T had 38 shareholders. As the last one was Yady Worldwide I can fully accept that there might be some inaccuracies in the shareholdings.

jabberba In relation to your 12.36 post I am not concerned about the White Family I am sure they will vote for the takeover. My concern is with the other shareholders who bought shares in W2T as part of the pre IPO fund raising they may be less inclined to vote for the takeover if they would suffer a loss as a result. The problem is they will see that the project that they were told the funding was to be used for is going ahead but they would not see any return as a result.

operastar in relation to your 12.37 post all of the first 11 units are part of the Peel plastics parks initiative and I therefore believe that Peel would be funding them from its own resources without going to outside funders with the possible exception of HMG. It is on this basis that I would expect the majority if not all of the initial 11 sites to have been done before any competitors are fully operational.

Piltick - In relation to your post of 12.04 coulditbe the case that some of the W2T shareholders who invested on the basis that there will be a IPO are now refusing to vote for the takeover hoping that W2T will have an ongoing role in the development of the plastic parks.

Dodger47 - In relation to your 10.03 post from this it would seem that the W2T shareholders have to approve the takeover first and then it will be put to PHE shareholders. I was wondering about the sequencing of the voting on this.

operastar in relation to your 00.16 post in my view there is little prospect of competitors overtaking PHE. As an example SGH2 are not due to have a commercial unit operating for about two years by which time I would expect most of the Peel DMG units to have been built. In any case it is worth noting that in most cases the target feedstock is not unrecycable plastic so it would not be a case of direct competition for feedstock. Not that the feedstock PHE would be using is in short supply so it could support a number of companies.

redleader1 In relation to your 07.11 post they are no longer used in the process. At the time I read the planning statement for the planning application for the Protos site. In the planning statement the process was outlined in a degree of detail and the use of ceramic balls was not mentioned. It may be that at one time it was intended to use them but this appears to have been abandoned.