Member Info for stokey12

streaky1 - in relation to your 18.02 post I do not think that this is something that Boris is suggesting it i something business leaders are suggesting. The question is what his special adviser recommends.

streaky1 - In relation to your 18.03 post I wouldsaymore likely Tuesday morning just before the presentation.

I came across this link on the AFC board https://hydrogeneurope.eu/sites/default/files/Hydrogen%20Europe%20Analysis_Post%20COVID-19%20and%20the%20Hydrogen%20Sector_final.pdf I have not read it yet but dome might find it of interest.

I see that Heathrow Airport has been granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal decision blocking the creation of a third runway. The decision can be viewed from www.supremecourt.uk on the homepage there is a section marked news the item is permission to appeal. The decision of the Supreme Court will be determinative of the issues raised unless the government brings in retrospective legislation reversing the decision. The last time I can recall such a step was taken was in 1965.

EdwardScissorhan - There is also a good chance that I am wrong and Jabberba is right. Also we have not seen the shareholder circular so the exact details are unknown we are going on details from the time the heads of terms were agreed. It is possible that after the due dilligence this may have changed.

NGR1616 - I am not expecting much movement as this is a known event and has been expected for sometime.

Tatty99 In relation to your 21.48 post of yesterday I think that Peel lost patience with W2T delaying things while they tried to arrange the finance so persuaded PHE to make the takeover offer. Well that is my read of the situation based on the various RNSs.

Tatty99 - In relation to your 15.44 post I wonder if you can explain the logic in this speculation. When you look at the other directorships of MK it seems to be a practice for MK to have a place on the board of companies operating in Protos.

mysteryguy - In relation to your post of 15.17 with the news that is expected in the next couple of months including the interim results I would disagree. For someone who complains on the Tullow Oil about deramping I find your continual deramping bordering on the hypocritical.

yellowf1 - In relation to your 14.15 post I would disagree with you not because you have failed to explain the logic in your suggstion that it will be sub 0.6p in 12 months time. My reason is that it has been trading most of the last two - three months when there has been little or no real news in a range of 0.85 - 1.15. That would seem to imply that the share price has settled at a new level. What is the rationale for you saying tha tit will be sub 0.6p. My view is that it will test or pass the year high.

Newboy58 - In relation to your post of 16.35 I am not sure that the delays in getting the shareholder circular is totally or even mainly the fault of the company. Although the heads of terms were agreed in December the full terms would not have been. Also as we saw with the recent RNSs there may have been dealings in the shares of the company which for some reason was not notified to the company. Further we have had the restrictions of gatherings which has complicated the holding of the EGM. All of these would need to be sorted out before we can move forward and done in a way that protects the interests of both legal and beneficial shareholders. So while the delay is frustrating I would rather a delay that gets things right than a rush job that needs unravelling later.

Piltick - From a quick read while there are some similarities between the two processes there are some differences. One is the primary feedstock. In thier case the primary feedstck is MSW as opposed to unrecyable plastic with PHE. Also they use ceramics as part of the process to create the hydrogen. Fundamentally the biggest difference is in the amount of hydrogen that will be created they would seem to be only creating between 10 - 20% of the amount of hydrogen that PHE is going to. Another difference is they will not be using the system to create electricity.

yellowf1 in relation to your 20.46 post I would observe that the JV partner you refer to has been researching waste to hydrogen for 20 years which is longer than PHE. It is therefore surprising that they had to team up with a US startup to bring there solution to the market. As far as I can tell they are at about the same stage as PHE they certainly do not appear to be any further ahead.

My view is that they are not a threat to PHE as the two can coexist quite easily with the two similar but not exactly the same processes.

thomasbrowne In relation to your 08.23 post I cannot see the relevance to PHE or are you just trying to get people to subscribe to the FT.

yellowf1 - in relation to your 17.08 post please see the RNS of 9 May 2019

Yellowf1 - In relation to your 14.48 post I see that you have shown your usual grasp of the facts. I would refer you to the amendments to the planning applcation from November 2019. The most important of them as far as yout comments are concerned was the cabling to the electricity substation on the site. This connection would allow connection to the national grid. Also there is the planning application which has been granted for new generator capacity on the site. As the applicant for the new generator capacity ws Peel I am reasoably confident as to the source of the electricty it will be generating and exporting.

Mysteryguy In relation to your 16.35 post Based on the lack of an equity fundraise in sixteen months, indications that site preparation work has started at the Protos site and the involvement of Peel. I would expect improvement in the share price within the next six to nine months.

Augustus_ In relation to your 14.52 post I wouldm not disagree with your analysis. I would observe that the value of the trade is higher than the annual ISA allowance so could be a SIPP purchase.

mattybohh235 - In relation to your 14.00 post it is actually totally impossible to tell from the trade price whether it was a buy or sell. This is because it was right in the middle of the spread.

I am not sure why the previous MOU did not progress to an agreement but as things turned out that may have been as well. However, with the new management perhaps it may be an opportune time to restart negotiations.