Editor's Pick: Podcast: Are Gilts the biggest Ponzi scheme ever?
(AFC.L) AFC Energy PLC Buy/Sell
Add to portfolio Set Alert Level 2 Desktop Trader
Summary
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date/Time | Headline | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 06-11-09 | RNS |
|
|
RNS Number : 1000C AFC Energy Plc 06 November 2009 THIS REPLACES THE ANNOUNCEMENT RELEASED AT 07.06 THIS MORNING (RNS NUMBER 0944C). THE TEXT HAS BEEN AMENDED. AFC Energy PLC ('AFC Energy' or the 'Company') Board Appointment AFC Energy PLC, the developer of low cost alkaline fuel cells, is pleased to announce that Ian Balchin has been appointed to the Board with immediate effect and will serve the Company as its Chief Executive Officer. Ian has been working for the Company, as Managing Director since October 2008 on a part time basis. Ian Henry Balchin, aged 45, has an extensive track record of commercialising technologies. He was CEO of Stanelco for 5 years and has previously held senior management positions in AEA Technology including director of New Ventures. Ian holds warrants over 1,500,000 shares. Current directorships: MetaLevel Limited, Polyfect Solutions Limited. Directorships during the last five years, Stanelco plc, Stanelco RF Technologies Limited, InGel Technologies Limited, Zircotec Limited, InGel Industrial Limited, Starpol Edible Films Limited, Starpol Packaging Systems Limited, Biotec Holdings GmbH There are no further disclosures required in accordance with paragraph (g) of Schedule 2 of the AIM Rules for Companies. Tim Yeo, Chairman of AFC Energy commented: "We are delighted that Ian has recognised the potential of AFC Energy and is now able to dedicate more time to maximising the opportunity for the Company. Ian's appointment confirms the strong AFC Energy team that is completely focused on producing a commercially viable alkali fuel cell system and producing a reliable source of clean energy." Ian Balchin, AFC Energy's Managing Director, added: "Over the last 12 months I have witnessed at firsthand the huge opportunity that AFC Energy has. The Company has also made significant technical progress over this period and this has been highlighted in the recently completed independent review carried out by the Centre for Process Innovation. I am delighted to accept this appointment and look forward to continuing progress." For further information please visit www.afcenergy.com or contact:
Tim Yeo, Chairman Ian Balchin, Managing Director
Shane Gallwey
Chelsea Hayes This information is provided by RNS The company news service from the London Stock Exchange END
BOADQLBBKFBEFBL More |
||
| 06-11-09 | AFX UK Focus |
|
|
LONDON, Nov 6 (Reuters) - AFC Energy Plc:
serve as CEO ((London Equities Newsroom; +44 20 7542 7717)) (For more news, please click here)
COPYRIGHT Copyright Thomson Reuters 2009. All rights reserved. The copying, republication or redistribution of Reuters News Content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. More |
||
| 06-11-09 | RNS |
|
|
RNS Number : 0944C AFC Energy Plc 06 November 2009 AFC Energy PLC ('AFC Energy' or the 'Company') Board Appointment AFC Energy PLC, the developer of low cost alkaline fuel cells, is pleased to announce that Ian Balchin, has been appointed to the Board with immediate effect and will serve the Company as its Chief Executive Officer . Ian has been working for the Company, as Managing Director since October 2008 on a part time basis. Ian Henry Balchin, aged 45, has an extensive track record of commercialising technologies. He was CEO of Stanelco for 5 years and has previously held senior management positions in AEA Technology including director of New Ventures. Ian holds warrants over 1,500,000 shares. Current directorships: MetaLevel Limited, Polyfect Solutions Limited Directorships during the last five years, Stanelco plc, Stanelco RF Technologies Limited, InGel Technologies Limited, Zircotec Limited, Ingel Industrial Limited, Starpol Edible Films Limited, Starpol Packaging Systems Limited. There are no further disclosures required in accordance with paragraph (g) of Schedule 2 of the AIM Rules for Companies. Tim Yeo, Chairman of AFC Energy commented "We are delighted that Ian has recognised the potential of AFC Energy and is now able to dedicate more time to maximising the opportunity for the Company. Ian's appointment confirms the strong AFC Energy team that is completely focused on producing a commercially viable alkali fuel cell system and producing a reliable source of renewable energy." Ian Balchin, AFC Energy's Managing Director, added: "Having worked with AFC Energy for 12 months, I have been able to see firsthand the huge opportunity that AFC Energy has. The company has made significant progress in its technical development of its low cost fuel cell system and Over the last 12 months I have witnessed at firsthand the huge opportunity that AFC Energy has. The Company has also made significant technical progress over this period and this has been highlighted in the recently completed independent review carried out by the Centre for Process Innovation. I am delighted to accept this appointment and look forward to continuing progress. For further information please visit www.afcenergy.com or contact:
Tim Yeo, Chairman Ian Balchin, Managing Director
Shane Gallwey
Chelsea Hayes This information is provided by RNS The company news service from the London Stock Exchange END
BOAUNSARKRRARRA More |
||
| 06-11-09 | RNS |
|
|
RNS Number : 0943C AFC Energy Plc 06 November 2009
AFC Energy plc ("AFC Energy" or the "Company") Appointment of Joint Broker AFC Energy plc, the developer of low cost alkaline fuel cells, is pleased to announce the appointment of Allenby Capital Limited as joint broker to the Company with immediate effect. Astaire Securities remains the Company's nominated adviser and broker to the Company. Ian Balchin, Managing Director, commented: "We are delighted to be working with the team at Allenby Capital whom we appointed as Joint Broker in order to benefit from their track record and expertise in the cleantech sector with a particular focus on Europe and the Middle East." Imran Ahmad, Chief Executive Officer at Allenby Capital, commented: "We have been following AFC Energy for some time and have been impressed with the progress that the Company has made over the last year. We are delighted to have been appointed as joint broker." For further information please contact:
Tim Yeo, Chairman Ian Balchin, Managing Director
Shane Gallwey
Imran Ahmad
Chelsea Hayes This information is provided by RNS The company news service from the London Stock Exchange END
MSCUNOARKWRARRA More |
||
| Date/Time | Subject | Author | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 22:40 | ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
onedayatatime, I too am in the first category, as if you couldn't tell
 I bought my first shares in early 2009. These are my three biggest buys and form the majority of my holding: 24 Apr 2009 20000 3.10p £633.10 17 Mar 2009 85000 1.05p £906.96 (this 85,000 shares is already a 10 bagger for me!) 25 Feb 2009 100,000 1.85p £1910.00 (another 100,000 shares not that far from being a 10 bagger for me) I also continued to buy, at 9p, 8.2p, 8.95p, 10.7p and 13.88p. I now hold circa 250,000 shares. My confidence is very high now that I know more than ever about AFC and it's markets. For me UCG will be another huge near term winner for AFC because no other technology can come close to it on efficiency, CO2 capture level and cost. The world needs UCG ASAP for the CO2 reduction when using coal as an energy resource. There are many huge projects available to B9 COAL that are able to go commercial in the next year or two and I am certain B9 COAL are working on getting deals signed ASAP for fuel cells on these projects. Were talking 400MW for a UCG power station, that is 40x the Akzo initial order, a couple of those and AFC will be well on the way to selling their first gigawatt of fuel cells. That would make them easily the #1 fuel cell manufacturer in the world, the AFC stock will be so hot you will need asbestos gloves to get near it. If I come into some spare cash I will buy more, up to a price(haven't decided how much yet), as I don't want to erode my low average of what is now just 3.1p. More | View thread (2) | Respond | Login to Vote up | Login to Vote down |
||||
| Sat 21:01 |
1
|
|||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
It has to be said that I am enjoying the banter at the moment. A few months ago the SP was the same as now and Veracity was, as is his/her right, asking a lot of questions and putting doubts into poeple's minds.
At that time, there was a lot of room for doubts to spread and for this to undermine investor confidence. However, quite a few of us persevered with our positive responses as we believed that many of these doubts will be removed. Now, a few months later, I think it is fair to say that a lot of these doubts have been removed and a lot of the questions answered. Nonetheless, Veracity continues, as is his/her right, to ask questions and raise doubts but the point is that there is far less room for these doubts to grow as far as I am concerned. I said the SP was too low at these prices a few months ago and, given the series of fantastic news that we have had since then, I stick by that view and feel even more happy to be a substantial investor in AFC. Quite frankly, it is unbelievable that the SP has not doubled on the back of all the recent news but that simply adds to the anticipation. For me, the position is quite simple and to tie the above analysis in with the debate about Howard White, which included the reply from Howard White which effectively states that he believes (and he ought to know) that AFC could be and will be absolutely huge: 1. You believe in the company (including Howard White and Ian Balchin as they are key to the company's success or failure), buy some more shares and stick around for years to see 500%, or 1000% +++ return, not to mention dividends in 2011 onwards 2. You believe that this is all just a lie and that it is being ramped for little or no apparent reason, but believe that the peak has not been reached so you hold a little longer and sell out for another 100% or 200% profit 3. You believe that this is all just a lie and that it is being ramped for little or no apparent reason and reckon that the bubble is going to burst, in which case you sell immediately, wait for the SP to tumble and say "told you so" 4. There is a fourth category where you believe in the long-term future but think it may fall in the shorter term but this risks missing out on a huge rise of course. 5. Then there is a fifth category to includes all those not mentioned above, which seems to include just Veracity at present on this BB e.g. someone who missed the rise this year and is annoyed, or who is a kind-hearted investor who wants to bring realism to the hype and avoid too many unsustainable peaks, or a disgruntled ex-exployee, or someone who just loves to play devil's advocate? Anyway, like Dezboy, I do not claim to be particularly technically minded but having spent a lot of time researching AFC and discussing the issues with everyone who I can within and outside the company, I am very clearly in the first category and the ongoing debates does nothing other than to strengthen this view. A few months' ago the debate irritated me a little as I felt that it was undermining investor confidence but now I can embrace it and use it to confirm the basis for my investment. It is just a matter of time IMHO before something huge happens to AFC that sees the back of the 15p resistance and sets AFC alongside CFU and CWR. DYOR. If the SP drops in the meantime then I will just have to accept but everything incuding the chart, the recent news, the general vibe on the BBs, the incredibly positve comments coming from the company, the independent reviewer and the press suggest that it is far more likely to go up soon. This was a screaming buy when I bought my first shares at 2p which is why I bought quite a few back then. It remained a screaming buy at 4p, 6p, 8p, 11p, 12p etc as the good news kept on coming which is why I kept on adding more shares. For me, it still remains a screaming buy at 14p but I just don't have the cash to buy any more and I also hold far more than enough already having listen . . . Read Full Message More | View thread (2) | Respond | Login to Vote up | Login to Vote down |
||||
| Sat 20:24 | ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
When AFC listed in 2007 they issued their admission document, this document has an internal date of 18 April 2007, in it they state the non-PT electrodes current lifetime:
Technological ‘Milestones’ to Date Tested and verifed the half-cell design of the new electrode to over 3,000 hours "Life cycle tests have been conducted on the AFC Energy cathodes for some significant time periods" The most recent test data has demonstrated over 3600 hours of continuous operation at a current density of 50 mA cm-2 ; as shown in Fig 9. In this time period the voltage fell by approximately 100 mV from 0.74 V to 0.64 V. This is equivalent to a voltage degradation of around 200 mV/year with a reduction in power density of some 15% and electrical effciency of 8% over a year. 3600 hours is 150 days, that means AFC were just 32 days short of 6 month longevetiy IN APRIL 2007. They have had TWO AND A HALF YEARS OF R&D since then, no way do Veracity's 2000 hour claims have any credibility. The loss of 8% efficiency over 1 year would easily be acceptable and priced into the ESCO deal. I also expect AFC will do just as they say and increase the performance/efficiency/longevity, lower the cost etc, such that the 8% loss reduces to a negligble amount and the electrodes are good for this performance for 15 months(even though they will be changed every 12 months anyway). More | View thread (4) | Respond | Login to Vote up | Login to Vote down |
||||
| Sat 19:49 | ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
Something else Veracity seems to be ignoring: AFC are patenting their efficiency, it's that good. Here are some of the patent claims from the handful of published patents, you can see where they have improved efficiency to such a level that they view it as part of their IP. One even covers them being cost efficient. I also found a bit covering removal of a stack from a system, this is replaced by a refurbished stack, the removed stack is refurbished back at the factory, meaning they have hardly any downtime. The presence of water at the catalyst layer of an electrode reduces the efficiency of the catalyst preventing the reactants (oxidant or fuel gas and electrolyte) coming into contact with the catalyst surface. The arrangement in which water is automatically drawn back into the electrode enables the assembly to operate efficiently and productively by reducing the amount of water that is present on the catalyst surface. This is in contrast to previous fuel cell assemblies in which excess water runs down the surface of the catalyst before being removed from the gas chamber. Maintaining the electrolyte at a negative pressure has been found to be an efficient way of establishing a pressure differential between the electrolyte and the gases of a fuel cell. Furthermore, the reduced need to provide gases at high pressure in the fuel cell assemblies of the invention may allow them to be run more efficiently than prior-art assemblies in which a considerable amount of energy is required to run compressors and the like to maintain high gas pressures. In a preferred embodiment the electrodes comprise: a substrate comprising a relatively hydrophilic plastics material, the substrate being permeable to aqueous fuel cell electrolytes; a conductive layer comprising a substantially uniform layer of conductive metal; and a catalyst layer. These layers may be discrete superimposed layers. Electrodes of that form are described in a PCT Patent Application by the same applicant PCT/GB2007/050104; the contents of that Application are hereby incorporated by reference. Such an electrode is relatively cheap compared with the cost of other components within the stack and so replacement of the electrodes and reuse of the rest of the stack is particularly cost efficient. However, the invention is not limited to use of such an electrode The electrodes 11 and 12 are not mechanically bonded to the plates 202 and 206, which has a number of implications. First, electrodes 11 and 12 are readily separated from the rest of stack 200. When the electrodes 11, 12 complete their service life, the stack 200 is removed as described above from the system in which it is installed and it may be replaced by a previously overhauled stack 200; the system thus has little down-time. The used stack 200 is dismantled to replace the old electrodes 11, 12 so that it is ready for re-use. Consequently, replacement of the stack costs only the cost of the new electrodes (and labour costs for their installation). It may subsequently be possible to refurbish the old electrodes 11, 12 offsite. The above does not contain anything from the recent Patents, which I am sure will have claims of their own covering more efficient and beneficial IP: 16 September 2009 (Journal 6278) GB0913827.2 Applicant: AFC Energy plc Title: Cell stack system block Date Lodged: 7 August 2009 16 September 2009 (Journal 6278) GB0913833.0 Applicant: AFC Energy plc Title: Cell stack plates Date Lodged: 7 August 2009 16 September 2009 (Journal 6278) GB0913836.3 Applicant: AFC Energy plc Title: Fuel cell Date Lodged: 7 August 2009 I think this is worth a second and separate mention: "It may subsequently be possible to refurbish the old electrodes 11, 12 offsite." AFC electrodes are the cheapest ever, but if they can refurbish the electrodes then surely we are now talking bargain basement costs over the 10 year life of a stack? More | View thread (3) | Respond | Login to Vote up | Login to Vote down |
||||
They have not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
Discussion Board Terms & Conditions FSA Market Abuse Fact Sheet
More...