We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biofuels | BFC | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 1.50 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.50 | 1.50 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 02/8/2007 11:39 by rebess Just as a dying last gasp observation.If the residual 6% that represents the shareholders stake is a seperate company in it's own right and therefore cannot be compulsory purchased, then it would have to be set up as a company with directors, articles of asociation etc. etc.and also an established share base with a determined value per share. Presumably it would exist as a company that does not trade, that sends it's annual £10 registration fee to remain as a company, albeit non trading but would nevertheless incur some admin expenditure. I'm wondering how all of this would work, also, what an irony if CGT is due when the company is finally sold. You could have a situation where investors are nursing substantial losses but have to pay CGT upon disposal. |
Posted at 18/7/2007 12:00 by paul_bennett "Paul_Bennett - 27 Jun'07 - 10:32 - 36971 of 36971 editAmazes me why anybody would want to buy in at 5p. " Still amazes me that investors continue to buy. There is no future for the private investor and the shares are going to be delisted. |
Posted at 13/7/2007 12:59 by the_doctor It is being delisted after the dfe.Barclays' 15.2% is on behalf of private investors you fool NDRANA. Futhermore, if they dont take on the debt, this company will go bust - simple. |
Posted at 04/7/2007 15:08 by the_doctor "Shame the government didn't come up with some cash to help the company in its present form and therefore help private investors"Why should it - the company screwed up. They messed up the hedge and were crippled by the interest payments. The plant didnt work properly and they were reliant on over-optimistic input/output prices. Other biofuel companies are managing to struggle through until margins improve |
Posted at 04/7/2007 15:04 by thatsourlinda Tough luck to any holders here, the debt just crippled the business. Shame the government didn't come up with some cash to help the company in its present form and therefore help private investors. Note there's no chance of the business going to the wall, just the current owners who will be left with either nothing, or not much. I'm sure Barclays will find a use for the carried losses and government grants which will come their way. The unfortunate fact is that virtually none of these so called environmental comapies in whatever guise can survive without gov aid of one form or another, or backing by the likes of BP (who, not being altruistic, like the carbon credits from such companies). |
Posted at 24/4/2007 12:43 by magpie59 Fine MRSI, but you are not investing in BFC, but making a quick buck on a quick rise. Fine, as I keep saying I have no problem with that. What I do question is you condemning evil shorters whilst placing yourself on the higher moral ground.Here is my league table of punters: 1 Investors in a company for mid to long term, helping the company to grow. GOOD 2 As above but for a shorter term, but still effectively supporting the company and not ramping it unrealistically. PRETTY GOOD. 3= Quickie investors looking for a quick rise before getting out, and not ramping it in the meantime. OK 3= Shorters who are just betting on where they think the company is going and are not deramping it in the meantime. OK 5= Rampers who force a price up falsely. BAD 5= Shorters who deramp a price falsely. BAD |
Posted at 24/4/2007 12:01 by magpie59 It doesn't say on the header it's only for investors, which is just as well as there are barely any left and those that remain barely post.I don't have a problem with what you do MRSI, but as I've said before your short term riding of unsustainable rises, is much more damaging to investors than shorting a stock as it follows its fundamental based, and inevitable decline, to next to nothing. |
Posted at 27/3/2007 09:37 by wrongfred I've emailed the FSA and LSE this morning on the basis that there may be trading here based on information which is not in the public domain, and this type of thing in the end is bad for all private investors, whether long or short. If a decision has already been made regarding this company's ongoing financing, it ought to be revealed to the market and not withheld so that the price can be manipulated either way by market makers, parties connected with Barclays, or whoever else is behind the recent trading volume (which I do not believe is mostly private investors). |
Posted at 21/2/2007 18:06 by jeremye Extarct from the Newcastle JournalBiofuels plant still on course - Feb 21 2007 By Nigel Stirling, The Journal The boss of an alternative fuels company yesterday issued an assurance over plans for its £150m plant on Teesside amid an apparent downturn in investor confidence in the fledgling sector. Stokesley-based Vireol plc, which last May announced plans for two 150,000 tonnes-a-year ethanol plants on Teesside and Yorkshire, has so far been bankrolled by a handful of private investors. The company, which plans to spend £300m building the plants due to be in production during 2008 and 2009, said yesterday it expected to announce details soon over how the facilities will be funded. Chief executive Andrew Hartley said: "We are at the early stages [of raising significant capital], but at this stage we believe we are on track. "There is some scepticism out there about biofuels at the moment but we are not facing any situation that has stopped our progress." Mr Hartley, who said Vireol broker Numis was contemplating a flotation or further private investor backing to fund its next phase of development, said the company was still on track to begin construction of the Teesside plant in the first part of this year. Production would come on-stream in 2008 and 2009, he said. Two companies with plans for ethanol plants on Teesside have in the past two days confessed to difficulties raising interest from investors scared off by falling oil prices and rising wheat prices. Yarm-based Ensus on Monday said it was reviewing plans to raise up to £90m from an AIM listing while yesterday US company Losonoco said it was finding it "harder than expected" to raise £80m for a wheat-to- ethanol plant. It follows difficulties from quoted ethanol producers in Australia and the US in the last six months and calls by biodiesel producers for increased government subsidies to salvage margins squeezed by rising feedstock prices. Mr Hartley said despite the difficulties, which have also enveloped AIM-listed biodiesel producers Biofuels Corporation and D1 Oils, it did not follow that all alternative fuel producers must struggle. He said: "But if you look at the biofuels producers, they are having to operate in a market which is going to depend on legislation. That market does not come into being until next year and, in the meantime, their costs are going up." While wheat prices were at their "highest level for some time", Mr Hartley said prices were likely to fall from their current highs. He said: "The thing you have to remember with wheat prices is that it is an annual thing. My information is that because the price has gone up, there has been a significant increase in new plantings. We don't know what it will be in 2009 but the point is that we are not having to buy in this market." Industry representatives are due to meet financial secretary to the Treasury John Heale today to lobby for a doubling of the 15p-a-litre duty on oil company sales under the Renewable Fuels Transport Obligation (RFTO). The representatives will argue that it will be cheaper for oil companies to pay the duty once it comes into force next April compared to buying biofuels and the duty should be increased to 30p. Mr Hartley said: "The Government needs to recognise that appropriate support needs to be put in place." |
Posted at 28/9/2006 12:26 by fillyourboot COMMENT FROM MY MATE WHO WAS THERE YESTERDAY AT THE Bio Fuels AGMI attended the BFC AGM yesterday and thought you might be interested in the highlights:- The meeting was a follow-on from the May AGM which had to be abandoned and rescheduled to yesterday because the accounts were not ready. You have probably seen the RNS that was issued at 07.00 yesterday informing investors that the plant was experiencing difficulties and was now running at reduced rates and the off-spec material was being put in storage. Shipments to customers are on hold. Many questions were raised on this issue. The plant has been running out of spec due to high free Glycerol for several weeks and BFC have found the Energea technology "lacking". Furthermore, Energea have not been able to solve the problem and have limited resources and hence are no longer on site. BFC have taken matters into their own hands and have now recruited Process Engineers and a Control/Instrumentat The plant is currently running at reduced and variable rates whilst the issues are addressed.It will not be running to spec or capacity for seevral weeks Interestingly, the Energea design uptime KPI is only 83%. Relations between Energea and BFC are "strained". A private investor asked what technology were they intending to use for "Teesside 2", the planned expansion. The Technical Director, Dr Alan Keasey, stated that they are currently looking at what is available but it would not be Energea's. The investor suggested that maybe he should talk to D1 Oils When asked how much on spec product had actually been sold since start up and Sean Sutcliffe was very evasive on this saying is was commercially sensitive and not for this meeting! There was an interesting debate from investors on this point. What he did say was that 1/3 goes to France, 1/3 to Germany and the balance to "other" customers including supermarket chains, intermediaries and blenders. The plant feedstock is Rape, Soy and Palm, (in that order) and they had seen a recent reduction in the price of Rape. Feedstock contracts are in place on a bought forward basis. No Glycerol sales have been achieved to date, all material going to storage. The Pharm. grade plant is now being commissioned but is not yet producing on spec. product either. I Think fdrom previous discussion this part of plant cost £12m A number of investors severely criticised BFC for the lack of newsflow and what little they did get was very misleading. Several examples of this were cited including graphs and charts given to analysts. SS came under considerable pressure on this and it was obviously very uncomfortable for him. The new Chairman and Technical Director (both ex BP Operations) are "devloping" (another) recovery plan. The very latest in a log string of similar recovery plans Not a good day for me should have sold out ages ago |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
