Member Info for stokey12

Manabouttown - As you saw fit to question my motives after I corrected a factual inaccuracy in one of your posts can I ask you to confirm what holdings you have in both PHE and W2T. Ever since the acquisition agreement was announced you have been very vocal in your support for the proposal. In order for everyone on the board to be able to decide what weight to give to your views in my opinion we should know what holdings you have. I note every other time you have been asked you have not answered which makes me wonder what you have to hide.

Piltick - In relation to your 09.47 post I regret that based on the comments from the Environmental Protection Team there might be some delay in view of what they say about contaminated land. We will have to wait for the planning officer's report.

Manabouttown -In relation to your 09.51 post I have a holding in the mid to high five figure range in PHE all of which is in my SIPP. Unlike you I try to give a balanced evidenced opinion. Sometimes it might be critical but when appropriate supportive. For instance me and BumbleB have clashed over the effect of the Habitats Regulation Assessment.

Manabouttown - In relation to your 09.29 post as you clearly do not know what a LEP is you may want to look at this link. http://www.d2n2lep.org/About/LEPs. Planning decisions are made by the planning committee applying the Local Developmen Plan and associated planning policies. We will have a clear idea of the likely decision the week before the meeting when the papers are published. The planning committee will normally follow the recommendation of the planning officer. My personal view is that planning will be granted subject to a number of conditions some of which might delay the start of construction.

BumbleB - In relation to your 08.42 post when I checked the planning website over the weekend no new documents or comments have been filed. It would seem that teh inforation going to the planning committee is as it stands now without any new input from Natural England.

Tatty99 - In relation to your 08.10 post planning permission should be granted by early February at the latest. I am not sure about funding it depends on the conditions attached and whether they ahve to be agreed to before the funding is approved.

Manabouttown - I note that you have not challenged anything I said in my 06.28 post. The point of my 06.28 post was to counter your scare posts that rejection of the acquisition proposal would lead to adminstration. It did not say anything about whether the proposal should be agreed to. As I have stated I am currently minded to abstain on the proposal there is nothing in today's RNS that causes me to change my mind. I note that the grant in conditional on planning being granted and funding being confirmed by March. I would also observe that the most recent set of accounts show a negative balance sheet so this grant if it is an asset would if there have been no other liabilities cause W2T to have a positive balance.

Manabouttown has since the acquisition of W2T was announced stated on a number of occasions predicted dire consequences if the acquisition is not approved. For a number of reasons, I do not agree that the rejection of the acquisition proposal would have such consequences. My reasons are:
Firstly, as Waste2Tricity has a long lease of Plot 10B at Protos and the collaboration agreement would still be in place the development of the DMG plant can still go ahead. PHE will still therefore earn the license and engineering fees it is due to earn under the collaboration agreement. Secondly, Powerhouse Energy is in discussions with a number of potential customers including eight major recyclers. If these discussions lead to orders, then PHE would have enough work in my estimation for two to three years. Thirdly, PHE has a strong balance sheet with no long term debt if the acquisition goes ahead it will take on £530,000 of long term debt that W2T has. This does not as far I can see include payments under the lease. It could, therefore, be argued that the acquisition would weaken not strengthen the PHE balance sheet.

I note that W2T needs a price in shares for the acquisition that is high enough that the shareholders in W2T will approve the deal, but low enough that the shareholders in PHE do not feel they are paying an arm and a leg for W2T. At the current suggested price and judging by the comments on this thread I do not feel they have managed this.

W2T may have to consider agreeing to a lower price nearer to a reasonable valuation of its shares for this agreement to be approved. The alternative which would acheive the same result would be for the agreement under which W2T acts as development partner to be terminated and the rights to revert back to PHE. It would be interesting to see why this route was not taken.

Piltick - In relation to your 09.27 post I suspect that by the time the sareholder circular comes around all shareholders will be able to do is accept or reject the proposal. I doubt there will be any opportunity to change any matters without rejecting it.

Piltick - I have emailed the Chairman with my concerns. The views I expressed in my 07.17 post are my current views they may change once I have read the shareholder circular.

If the price that W2T is asking is as some have suggested than W2T may have overestimated the willingness of the shareholders in PHE to agree to the deal. I suspect that some PHE shareholders who like me are not willing to agree to an acquisition at any price. If that is correct the question is if they feel that the price is too high would they like I am currently minded to do and abstain or vote against the offer.

Telephoneman - An interesting article. It seems more designed to promote Waste2tricity than PHE.

Piltick - Thanks for your 09.48 post. I would query one thing I was not aware of any current suggestion that fuel cells from AFC or anybody else will be used to generate electricity. If you read the planning statement from page 13 which describes the process it goes from the thermal chamber to the genset without going through a fuel cell.

Piltick - In relatio to your 23.08 post if you assume that the hydrogen is sold at £6.50 a kg and that 2tonne of Hydrogen is produced that would give you a daily revenue of £13,000 or £4,550,000 a year. An operator would therefore recover the capital cost of selling the hydrogen within 3 years.

Waste2Tricity Internatonal has been negotiating with Toyota and probably others for some time in respect of the DMG technology. It also has offices in Tokyo so it would seem to be trading. However for the last three financial years dormant accounts have been filed for it. As it does not seem to meet the definition of dormant for corporation tax purposes does anyone know how it could have file dormant accounts?

Dodger47 - The dates for the next two planning meetings are available from this link http://cmttpublic.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CId=827 the papers for the meeting are available seven days beforefrom the same link.

I think part of the reason for the lacklustre performance of the share price may be due to the previous failed gassification projects. See the second link in my 18.38 post you may have to go through to the link to it in the first link. Having been bitten before with gassification projects the market might want to wait to see if this one works first before doing a rerate.

In thier article https://resource.co/article/uk-s-first-waste-hydrogen-plant-secures-next-stage-funding they have added a quote from Tim Yeo Chairman of Waste2Tricity which was not in the original RNS.

In the same issue they have this from our good friends at UKWIN https://resource.co/article/ukwin-highlights-litany-gasification-failures-11459.

I must make a note to read next month's edition which is going to look at gassification I wonder how balanced it will be.

Kenny100 - In relation to your 18.06 and this is not aimedat you but do amy of these journalist ever do any anlaysis instead of just cribbing from the news release.