Member Info for testpack3

Pge 1)

Excellent posts by H2h000, synxs and VH.

I believe VH has an agenda. Whenever I read articles against fossil fuel alternatives, a little digging shows the authors are OnG industry related.

H2 is expensive to produce. We are familiar with steam reforming methane process as the cheapest source of H2, but with a massive C footprint. This footprint is being lowered by use of C scrubbers and other methods, but still has a large footprint in extraction and distribution. The most favoured process is electrolysis of water. ( there is RnD at present, and showing good results using sea water as feed stock). Detractors point to C footprint of Solar and Wind generation. The life span of wind turbines and solar pnels has been put at between 20-30 years. This will only get better with new panel materials and vertical wind generators.

H2 is expensive and dangerous to transport. The argument is a fallacy. Every country on the planet has access to electrical generation. Ergo, every country on the planet can produce H2, and can produce it near to it's where it's needed. Only a relatively few countries have OnG reserves. There is a large C footprint, and dangers, in both it's extraction and delivery to point of sale. Then add costs, and C footprint in the amount of concrete, steel used in construction of extraction operations, refineries etc. Of course, with DMG, a plant can be literally 'on site' where syngas and/or H2 is required. The storage of H2 in populated area is well known. Ask Air Liquide ( I believe now owners of Brit Oxygen.).

Thermodynamic considerations. Again a red Herring by VH. As mentioned by aforementioned contributors, both energy density and volumetric energy density of H2 compare very favourably with FF's. .

As previously stated, any electrical supply can provide H2 where neede. Other sources of green electricity not mentioned are geothermal and hydro. Not every Country has mountains and dams for the latter, but under every Country is a thermal source, some deeper than others. It is only money that stops this from being a renewable source for millennia.

HFC have so many advantages over ICE, there is no time to mention them all. The present cost of HFC in cars is prohibitive because of it's high proportion of the total selling cost of vehicle. It will be noted that several high cost marques have HFC options. An crucial factor in sales of HFC cars is lack of refuelling stations. This is a classic 'chicken and egg' conundrum. The case for HGV's, buses, trains, ships, aircraft is totally different. The FC cost is relatively low cf cost of item. All of these modes of transport have Depot refuelling., and in many cases could produce H2 'in depot'. Within a generation or so, it is possible that ships will be mfg H2 in situ from sea water.

The motor mfrs have ben reluctant to embrace H2FC as a power mode. This is financial. They have an extensive Worldwide presence of franchise based dealers and spares suppliers.

A prime reason why options are taken up now is tax consideration. I believe there will be a tax liability on the 'profit' attributed between the option price and the prevailing price. As of today that is 1.25p ps. EML now has PDMR's with upwards of 30, 40, 50 millions shares. Naturally, this only makes them rich if the company succeeds. Be aware of any PDMR share sales in near future. Interesting that Graham said 50p a share for his millions held. The FS he had in his hands a few years ago would equate, at full production, and ore prevailing price at time, to a much higher MC than c£500M.

A few of the Herd , toward the end of Q1 were confidently forecasting ESIA by end H1. They were not keen on being drawn into .'when will you start to panic'. It's only 3 weeks to end of H1, so no need to panic yet. However, I would seriously suggest that if no ESIA by EOY, panic mode should be set at 'full'. Between now and then, if no ESIA, there will be 'bargain basement' for Herd members to fill their boots. The 'upside' at full production, is you having your full investment returned 2x a year by way of divis. Get bigger Boots.

Oops. page 1 has gone missing . Too long to try and repost.

2)

ted only transformed. The main argument put forward by detractors is the cost of producing H2. This will fall as innovation and RnD gather pace. If GW is a reality, then it is only a matter of time before Nations realise there is no alternative but to follow a H2 based energy economy.

Yes Ideas, the language from the BOD has been 'everything has been done' . Although failing to issue an ESIA at this time would be a momentous step for Moroccan Authorities, it might also include a Caveat that 'events may change in the future', and an application then might be better received. This event might be rain of Biblical proportions. However, I do not think ESIA is a 'given'. The lack of communication from BOD is shockingly bad, even more so when I was told by e-mail that a QnA was imminent. Strange that anagram of 'imminent' is 'mint mine'. Mint can mean in pristine condition, as in unused. An unused mine. oh dear. Are we all victims of a ghastly lexicon game by the BOD. Time will reveal all.

ATD. Oh dear. your rant on peckers and your scoring success puts you firmly in manual labour territory. westie put my age at 20-30, obviously based on my musings and wit, and devouring you time after time. Your responses have only been your feelings of being inadequate. Your musings put you at 13. Take a rest.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

FoxyJoe. Your sentiments can be summed up in this adage;

The prime mover of any BOD member, especially CEO, of an AIM listed company is to secure the financial wellbeing of themselves and family. If the company is a success, that is a bonus.

Todays RNS just stated go to website. On the website, under heading AGM, it only repeats the RNS. A closed loop. No details of AGM to be found, unless it's hidden'. What a shambles. I sent a message, waiting for the 'it's imminent' reply.

Atd. lol. 'they cant force the Govt to issue EISA'. You are one of the guys posting it's a 'given', so your comment leaves open 'not awarding EISA' What it can do is offer a working solution to the water problem. It appears BD have not got a clue. AS far as speaking at the 'African' event, EML was not invited by Morocco, it's just another BOD perk, holiday in the Sun, probably took families, enjoying the largesse of EML. The Moroccan newspaper article posted on here several weeks ago, intimating the EISA was 'imminent', has obviously not been read by Moroccan Authorities.

I'm still waiting for a reply to my mail of 30 May. Thnx in advance.

Dshox. sometime ago there was a significant sell off of HFR, and Reg Auth. wanted to know if there was a reason that had not been reported. LSE has same rule. HFR replied that it knew of no reason. 2 or 3 days later the co announce a share issue at a much discounted price. Of course, the share sellers were obviously aware of the upcoming issue. This is one of many ways BOD members, family and friends get rich. Difficult to prove, but obvious.

ATD. Must have took you ages to try and pick bones in my post on the above, and couldn.t find anything so you come up with spurious differences on DCF for NPV calculations. ( you will have to look that up as well). As for your ramblings about it being listed in Oz, my examples clearly showed the currency as it was reported, and then shown in GBP for clarity and comparison purposes. You are suggesting some of your fellow posters do not have sufficient intelligence to know that an Oz listed co. may report in US$ or A$. However, the cos reporting figures in OZ always state $ or A$. Simple really. There are many similarities between EML and HFR. Resource is the same ( bonus for EML it also has salt). Both are inclined drift mines. It is naive to compare sp of both cos. They have widely different shares in issue. . !B v 390Msue. The main metric is Market Cap. MC, HFR c £120M, MC, EML c £50M.

I find your comment very strange that you think EML post EISA ( If and when) will remain at 5p. I can assure you it will not. Please expand on your reasoning. The answer is not on Google, sorry.

chisler. c1 ( cash cost/tonne is universal in any mining or extraction industry, and gives a relatively easy ebitda figure.) the all inclusive cost, aic, includes all the other metrics that c1 does not. ie: tax, interest payments on loans, depreciation and amortiation., plus costs to run the business. deducting aic from revenue gives profit. to arrive at cash flow metrics, the 'non cash' items, depreciation and amortisation can be added back. the 'running costs' of a co, once reviewed from a p&l a/c, are generally similar from y 2 y.

the big difference between the 2 cos in 'the upside', 20x and 60x for hfr, eml respectively, is the large difference in ci costs. $91, $50 respect. the figure for eml was lowered since in gw62 earlier post, it was stated income from salt sales were credited to potash c1 costs. ( obviously does not affect overall profitability of mine.).. although i stated the metrics of ebitda showed eml to be a more profitable gamble ( investment), a crucial fact may tip the balance. in the illustration i provided, outputs were the same, incomes were the same, and it is highly likely total costs to ore extraction will be similar. the defining metric for sp long term is payment of divis ( this is how bod get mega rich, since many shares are given free as bonuses, or a are highly discounted.). divis are generally only paid once a significant part of the debt to construct the asset has been paid, and is often a %age of the ebitda. for example purposes, let us use 50% of ebitda distributed as divis.

eml ebitda $250m, 50% is $125m divided by no of shares, 1b, gives div per share of $0.125 or c 10p. so , for s/h with av sp of 5p, their money is returned twice every year ( less tax).

for hfr, ebitda is $209m, 50% is c$ 104m, divided by no of shares, 390m, gives a divi per share of $0.27 or 21p, current sp is a$ 0.60 or c31p, hence initial money cost if bought at 31p is returned every 8 months, and eml is every 6 months.

of course, every one of these quoted figures is subject to change. selling price of ore, capital costs, %age of ebitda when mine is fully operational, and of course, intangibles. but on the metrics given, eml again comes out in front.

last night at 10pm brasil time, i took out a position in hfr at 32.5p. premium price for an overseas stock with swiss broker, and a dealing charge of £50. on the face of it, hfr is all set to construct, starting eoy, however, as we all know, bureaucracy can grind to a halt 'the best laid plans of mice and men'. obviously a problem 250 yrs ago.

this is not investment advice, it is playing with numbers , for comparison purposes on the back of a *** packet. seriously. dyor.

KR stated the problem is supply of the feedstock. Caramba, Holy Ghost, is he from this planet,? has he not been reading the news about the millions of tonnes of non recyclable plastic going to the sea, land fills, being incinerated. ? Total BS. There are are literally 100's of refuse collectors, public, and private, many with sorting facilities. It is BS to probably hide the technical problems. A Red Herring.

Posters stating the 'common sense' phrase ' prospective customers need to see a DMG working' before a commitment, should have been asking BOD several years ago , following the collaboration with Peel, 'you are putting the building of FOAK in the hands of a 3rd party. Are you effing crazy'. Answer, yes they were, and still are.

Chisler;

The sp is basically immaterial in this context, the MC is the Numero Uno. HFR MC is c £120, EML is currently £50M, so on a 'one size fits' all basis EML's MC after EISA should be 120/50 x sp or c 2.5 x. So 4.8 x 2.5 = 12p. A more realistc basis to judge the MC of both cos is to look at possible EBITDA on full operational output tonnages.

If we use $300 pt as a guide figure, and outputs at both mines is 1M t pa.

HFR Cash cost pt is $91pt, Sale value is $300pt., so contribution to profit is 300 - 91 = 209. x 1M = $209M contribution. This is effectively EBITDA ( Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation, Amortisation costs.) If we consider an 'average Price/ Earnings ratio (P/E) of 15;1, the MC of HFR would be 15 x 209 = $3.14B. Divided by no of shares in issue 390M gives sp of $8.00, or c 12 $A. ( £6.40)HFR is up 10% today and trading at 0.619 $a. So upside is 20X.

Similarly for EML using C1 of $50 pt ( GW62 figure), MC would be 250 x 1M = 250M x 15 = 3.75$B, divide by No of shares, approx 1B, gives sp of $3.75 or £3,00 ( ExR = 1.25 $;£) so upside for EML is 60X.

Reason for high discrepancy in return on investment from now, 60X cf 20X is the high difference in current sp of both cos. EML 5p HFR 0.6A$ = c 31p.

It should also be noted EML gas !B shares in Issue, HFR has 390M.

For investment purposes EML appears to be the better gamble, but HFR has all the approvals to construct a working mine. EML, and this is Breaking News, does not. To quantify the risk assessment between EML and HFR , it's 60/20 =3.

Mjallen. You are wrong on so many counts. First, The US stock market crash was in 2008, Madoffs Ponzi scheme was discovered in 2008, and he was arrested. He collapsed because the stock market crashed. And he was 'lorded'. laughable.

So he was buying lots of shares, not really, some as a front, but when those shares he did buy, tanked in the crash, he knew the game was up, and even then , he was still trying to get cash from friends saying 'it was a good time to buy'. He put the new money he received into a bank a/c, not all of it, to pay divis and cash for investors who wanted out. the rest he used for personal use. Fraud. The film is not about 'every share sale has to have a buyer', which was your fake news.

Brokers can offer a settlement date of 1 day, 3 days, 20 days, at which time the money is taken from your a/c and the shares added to your a/c. With electronic dealing, the shares will not be added to your a/c until your payment is in their a/c. If the payment is transferred immediately, the shares are transferred immediately. Maybe your Broker has different rules. Try a better one. and stop name calling like a recalcitrant child, and accept that you do not know what you are talking about. And you think all films are based on absolute facts. oh dear. I get my 'facts' from reliable sources, not from Film Directors. Educate yourself and try reading books.

KTF. Assistant to Parsons Poodle in exonerating The Failure for all his misdeeds. ( had to use PP since I was reminded of it).. For a start KTF ( a misnomer if ever there was one), You have no idea what posters here invested in SOU, and if it was within their means or not. We all know with your 'cheeky top ups' how much you lost. I think the example you gave for your 'low' average now was something like 500 shares at 30p, 400 shares at 60p, and 1 million at 1p, lo and behold a low average. , Those are Trump statistics, to fool fools. As far as the living in the past goes, it is a wise man that knows where he has been, it may provide a guide for the future.

Save me looking, does anyone know ( if it's been reported) , C 1 cost for Potash at Khemisett mine.?

BTS. Indeed, and the Muga mine situated in the heart of Eu. At A$ 0.56 ps ( c30p), gives a MC of c £120M. With the mining license now issued, construction work on site expected end of this year. However, like the Brits, the Spanish can be v optimistic. With initial output of 1/2 m tpy, growing to 1M tpy, like EML the metrics are excellent. It certainly appears that HFR will be mining Potash well before EML, but since their mine is close to major agricultural centres, should not impinge on EML's forecast markets.

FJ. It is always wise to remember the Raison D'etre for any BOD member, especially the CEO, and especially in AIM cos.

It is to secure the financial wellbeing of themselves and families. If the company succeeds it is an added bonus. Many cos that should have been assigned to Bankruptcy Court, have been allowed to hang on by BOD only for the benefits of salary, feeding off co largesse, and mostly Pension payments. Some RNS are clearly 'polishing a t**d.

Mjallen. As you say there is a 'warehouse' of shares from which shares are 'sold and bought'. When the warehouse is empty, it is not possible to buy shares, because non are available, and the price will soar to tempt s/h to sell. The opposite is also true. The market does not record events that do not take place, such as 'every sale has a buy' it is fake news, Your comment about Maddoff is laughable. He operated a Ponzi Scheme. This is a scheme, since you obviously do not understand it, is when an 'Investment financier' offered his clients very attractive rates of return. His client base grew on the basis of referrals from existing clients who had received impressive RoR. He was only paying these 'impressive rates' from the funds received from new clients. ie. a Ponzi Scheme. Nothing to do with share trading or share warehouses. Please desist from posting nonsense.