Member Info for stokey12

Piltick - In relation to your 11.27 post I agree with what Telephoneman says in his 14.38 post. Also I note that this new plant will not be operational until H2 2020. If everything goes to plan with PHE then it should have a firm base of orders so that this plant should not be an issue.

Before anyone points out that the buys have outnumbered the sells by at least 3 to 1 yet the shareprice has still gone down can I point out the trade price has also gone down. The share rpice is taken as either the mid point between the ask and bid price or the UT price. So if the trade price goes down the share price will go down even when the buys outnumber the sells. It took me sometime to work that one out as logic says if the buys outnumber the sells then the share price should go up.

Jabberba - I believe in most cases a planning permission oce granted lasts about five years so I would think that would be enough time to sort out funding.

Jabberba - From a discussion I had with Bruce I believe you are right about not diluting the shareholders. They could put the planning application in before the funding as they would have time after the planning permission to raise the money if needs be.

Piltick - Thanks for your 23.06 post. This illustrates a problem with the current business model. From this point the speed of advance of the commervial deployment of the DMG is not completely in PHE's hands. They will not be able to get firm orders until the first DMG unit is built and operational. For that to happen the plannng application needs to be submitted. This step is at the choice of W2T who will be submitting it. I am not sure what incentive they have in putting in the planning application sooner rather than later.

Does anyone know if the planning application has gone in yet for the DMG site? I am concerned as I was on the council website and saw an application that has not beendecided after six months and that was on the Protos site.

In both of the last two weeks the net sells of shares has been around 7million if my dodgy maths is right.

Most likely caused by lack of news and external macro economic factors. We might get a blip next week when the Annual Report and Accounts come out.

Of course while you can calculate the amount of CO2 that a DMG saves from the hydrogen by multiplying the amount of CO2 in a litre of petrol by the number of litres in a ton of hydrogen. The question is how much CO2 is saved by the electricity generated by the DMG.

Newboy58 - I disagree the more important question from the environmental point of view is how much CO2 it displaces. Iam struggling with the calculation can somebody assist with it but it is alot of CO2.

I have just done a quick calculations if the 11,000 litres figure I quoted in my 09.48 post is correct then in a year a 25 tonne a day DMG unit will dislace 3,850,000 litres of petrol which is alot of CO2 taken out of the atmosphere.

Next week I anticipate that we will get the notice of the AGM and the Annual Report and Accounts for the year ending 31 December 2018 will also be published. To look out for in the Annual Report is what it says if anything about post report period events. We might get a mention there about the current pipeline. In February we were told that apart from six client sites they were working on there was serious enquiries from another 12 possible customers. It would be interesting to see if this figure is the same.

Piltick - reference your 22.54 post of yesterday I note what you say about writing to potential customers.In relation to CHAIN the following is the text of an email I have just sent them. If I get a reply I will let you know not expecting one.
Dear Sirs

I am writing to you in relation to a pending planning application for a 25 tonne per day waste from energy facility at Unit 10 on the Protos site in Cheshire. I understand you may be considering objecting to this application on environmental grounds. I would ask you to consider supporting this application on environmental grounds. As I understand it your objections are based on the harm caused by the release of harmful toxins. If you look at the video at the bottom of the page at www.powerhouseenergy.net this explains the technology that will be used at this facility. As you will see from this explanation no harmful toxins are released as a result of the process.

Even if you wish to discount this as company propaganda and I would accept that as a possible view I would observe that the process has been certified as technically viable by DNV GL a reputable third party verification company. The process has therefore been independently verified.
As a reputable organisation I am sure you would want to do your own checks. Also, you would wish to consider if the environmental costs of the process are outweighed by the environmental benefits of the process. With this process the facility would produce, using a power only model, around 58MW/h of electricity a day which is enough to power a small town. It can also be easily adapted to produce both power and hydrogen. In this case it would produce about 28MW/h of electricity a day and one tonne of hydrogen a day. Based on the figures in this article https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/motors/how-much-does-a-hydrogen-car-cost-to-run-a3595841.html a tonne of hydrogen would displace around eleven thousand litres of petrol a day. I would therefore argue that it would be more beneficial to the environment to have this facility which would reduce the use of fossil fuel burning production of electricity and reduce significantly the amount of car fumes entering the air reducing air pollution.

Regards

nomlungu - Reference your 19.50 post of yesterday. Having looked at the article I am quite relaxed about this development. The amount of waste plastic in the world is such that having competing technologies is not a problem. It is unlikely that the PHE technology would be able to convert all the unrecyable waste plastic on its own. I cannot recall the annual amount of waste plastic but it would take a thousand DMG units to convert around nine million tonnes of waste plastic.

redleader1 - Check the information on the website

Redleader1 - I would advise you to look at the company website there is a video on it which shows the process. In the case of PHE there is no afterburn residue as the feedstock is not burnt it is turned into gas while ina sealed thermal chamber.

Jabberba - I am going to respectfully disagree with your 7.38 post. Too many shareholders promoting the company runs the danger of giving the impression of a company that cannot market itself. While responding to tweets is one thing if you have a number of shareholders all writing to the same company about PHE this might backfire.

With the AGM next month we might want to canvass the BoD's vews on whether shareholder promotion should continue or whether for now PHE's profile has been raised enough bearing in mind that we do not have a commercial model up and running.

A rare event I think see this twiter feed https://twitter.com/ThomasCaffrey7/status/1140596698177298433. I think the poster must have a site in mind. Could be promising.

redleader1 - As Newboy58 says it would be best for you to do some research using google or another search engine. This ensures that any answer is not subject to any subjective bias. Also the answer is not that straighforward as in both cases it would depend on the method of creation that is used.

At the current rate of trading by the end of today the equivalent of 1% of the issued share capital of PHE would have been traded. This is about the entire amount that was traded all of last week.