Katherine Roe, CEO at Wentworth Resources talks through the Ruvuma gas development in Tanzania. Watch the full video here.
I agree, it does look like a temperature sensor (TS). I wonder what the life span of this type of sensor is. I would expect at least one other backup TS so that production wouldn't have to be stopped at an inconvenient time to replace the sensor as it is probably one of the most important bits of kit to ensure correct levels of gasification.
With positivity, drive and determination PDD has a real opportunity to alter the existing direction of travel and showcase the technology to the world. I'm far more positive now than with the last two incumbents even though the news feed is a bit slow and doesn't give much away.
Still waiting for answers to my questions though.
0772Fritz - AE is a real person, has attended at least one AGM and I am 99.9% certain attended one of the two DMG open days in Chester. Astute, knowledgeable and canny was my impression, I would genuinely advise you to revise your opinion.
That said, I have no knowledge of AE's current motivation with the posts, I will always read them as I can make my own judgement as to the validity of the points raised.
I still believe PHE will eventually thrive.
Hi Dr A
I am a bit confused as to who HW is working for PHE, HUI or both? The relationships need to be explained fully and openly. Who is his main employer and therefore where his main motivation is directed. (I have no issue regarding him wanting to getting a FOCK up and running and his belief in the tech).
I have never believed in PHE being a pure tech company, and have been frustrated with the direction of travel over the last few years. Maybe through lack of knowledge, I feel that PHE has left behind their responsibility for getting the FOCK up and running and left it to others to do it for them. I am not a fan of territorial contracts unless they contain get out clauses. They should always contain non performance, and penalty payments for non delivery.
I can understand PDD needing time to understand and review the business but I also expect from him to be clear about the Peel contract, before we proceed forward. If Peel can not or will not complete financial close , I am not in favour of extending it, and we move to a plant by plant contract basis with them. Having a P--l on the board, has this enabled an advantage and possible leverage (legal only) over PHE's decisions?
I understand accounts and make my own assessment regarding PHE's cash position now, and if Peel were to take the 10% holding, but I believe that PHE need to be open with us shareholders. What is the current cash status, operational cash burn, what cash has been already committed and legally tied up in early item purchases if any? Can any purchased items be transferred to a different venture and if so are there any implications to PHE?
If PHE was to enter into a joint partnership to get a FOCK up and running, could it be front end only therefore to prove proof of concept without the bells and whistles on the end? Could we spend c.£7-10m without HUI or c. £20m+ for the full process? What moneys could PHE contribute to a venture before they would need to undertake another fund raise? If a fund raise was required how much would be needed and would it be offered to existing shareholder first prior to going to the external market?
Has PHE under invested in quality sales employees who can get contracts over the line? Have potential suppliers been approach to either fund FOCK parts free with agreements to procure for all future sales or parts provided with payment schedules after a working FOCK is completed?
If HUI and PHE went into a joint venture, what are the realistic time lines?
The above is just a starter on the questions that need to be answered.
I can not say if I will support a joint venture with HUI in Ireland. While I want a FOCK I need to understand what is reality with the Peel contract. PDD could approach Peel for a binding agreement to be added to the existing contract regarding timescales or state that there is still no certainty that Peel will proceed. PHE can then change direction.
Holding - no change.
Dr A, yes it could be good news but that depends whether the redesign ultimately results in significant economic benefits compared to the time taken to redesign and go through all the checks and balance processes again.
In the past so many UK military contracts started off with a specification that then continually changed. The result was long delays and cost over-runs.
Sometimes its best to get a product into the commercial market excepting that improvements or upgrades can be made at a strategic convenient time. All of this can be built into a contract.
Dr A, thank-you for your 9.25am post today. Always useful and I'm grateful for your continued input.
A couple of questions.
Has Howard ever given you a reason for why the last two years have been allowed to drift? If my family owned 25% of PHE, I would have been all over this.
A lot of questions have previously been raised as to whether Peel was slowing the progress of 1st plant but could it actually be PHE and the DMG not being ready for commercial operation?
I never received any replies to my emails from our previous CEO.
Piltick, 100% agree with you re PHE update. Even if it is only to say that a thorough review of the business and business plan was being undertaken and that when complete they would announce a strategy of how they are going to proceed. This should include if Peel doesn't sign as per timescales.
There should be an update on the procurement of long stage items as this was announced as part of the fundraise.
I believe it is also necessary to remove any confusion over HUI, PHE and Electron's association and to confirm that PHE will still be entitled to any royalties from HUI even if the plant is adapted to meet HUI's own requirements. Also why changes may be necessary and does it effect the Peel model.
AudibleEnergy, good to hear from you.
I sold part of my holding and diversified. I have managed to buy back much of what I sold and kept the diversification intact.
I'm still a strong believer in the DMG, but I share many of your concerns. We both do our research but I suspect in slightly different ways. I've not been a fan of the procrastination that appears to have occurred. Certainly not a fan of rolling over contracts and loan facilities without a renegotiation of terms and conditions.
I still believe this will come good though. The funding rounds gave PHE a little leeway. While it grates me to say it, Peel was put in the driving seat and given the keys. I suspect that Peel is doing what's best for Peel and their timelines are based on the provision of feedstocks but also the use of outputs. They are whole site planning not just PHE. Why have a plant standing unutilised when the cash could still be in the bank? Who's bank though? Accountants treasure good cash management.
Carry on asking the questions. Anything thought provoking is always a bonus in my book.
AudibleEnergy, good to see you back and in full swing again. Always enjoyable to read the bear baiting and the slightly different perspective. I hope you're planning on making an appearance at the AGM this year to help cheer up the proceedings. Another pints in order.
I understood that the loan and financial close were two different contractual issues. Based on this, the RNS does not specifically mention the financial close.
As I have stated before, if Peel is unable to complete, PHE should have renegotiated the terms so that the current shareholders are not as diluted as we will be. The board should have been looking at all options including raising the money to go it alone. What happens next time when we get the next delay and excuse?
I want to see a bit of grit and determination from our new board. Confidence that PHE can deliver is seeping away. The model certainly needs to be reviewed and more control taken by PHE. The saddest part of todays RNS is that we had already seen it coming but hoped instead that the rabbit would be pulled out the hat.
The AGM although a while away may have a few unhappy investors if this inertia continues, and I'll be one of them.
This is how it is used by Thames Water:
It is just another marketable product. The use would be governed either/or by government and/ or local regulations and then by project profitability compared against its other possible usage.
This maybe will give you an idea on fatbergs.
Without being able to read the current agreement with Peel and all its fine words, it is impossible for us PI's to fully know the implications and potential options to PHE. What we do know is that the FOAK is considerably behind the schedule originally put out by PHE.
If financial close isn't completed by the extended Feb 2022 timescale then this would be the perfect time to renegotiate or cancel the agreement in its present form. With HUI in the picture Peels position is a lot weaker than it was. PHE also has a wad of cash and/or lead time materials probably recoverable from the SPV.
If the BOD have been undertaking risk assessments relating to the contract , then I would have expected them to have lined up an alternative option in the event that financial close doesn't happen again.
Whilst I generally share your view post Wed 11:50, sometimes it is necessary to take stock of a situation and move in a different direction. If financial close isn't completed this time, it may be time for a change. I really don't accept that kicking the can down the road again would be the right option. Peel need to show they are serious.
And then we have GE.
I wonder which of these three big companies is in the lead on hydrogen flight?
And why not have a read of the pdf accessible on:
And even more background:
Worth a read if you haven't already:
Page 4 "we will make all the commercial aero engines we produce, and our most popular reciprocating engines, fully compatible with sustainable fuels by 2023".