Ann: FLC procures first Aspiral contracts with ITEST in China, page-46

Hi peterpanned,

                         interesting articles however you would have noted that they are all very dated, 2009 to 2014 from a quick glance, most refer

to very large MBR plants and have little relevance to the present situation. Probably it would be of more interest if you could locate some very recent articles on smaller MBR installations so as to get more meaningful comparisons, something I have not had much luck with.

As you would know Fluence have deliberately targeted the small to medium space with their new MABR technology, the recent contracts with iTEST and various other parties attest to that. This is the area where Fluence will either sink or swim, from all my research there appears now in 2018 to be minimal competition in this area with some very recent tenders by Chinese companies with provincial or central government ownership even going as far as to specify MABR as the technology required.

Additionally of course they have SUBRE which is designed to be added to the larger MBR plants to increase their efficiency.

Yes originally CGGC apparently promised the earth, 10,000 modules, then 60,000 modules and jointly build a separate production plant, an initial 345 plant contract, etc, etc. Emefcy swallowed the lot and announced with much fanfare however for some time I have been pretty sure there was a sting in the tail that Emefcy did not spot in time, surprising that they did not as one director was supposedly an expert on all things Chinese and involved in a manufacturing facility in China.

A number of statements at the time from Mr Song Ling, one of the CGGC heavies, was that they looked forward to working with Emefcy, JOINTLY

sharing the technology, and JOINTLY developing further applications for MABR.

Of course those wily Chinamen saved the best bit for last, and after Emefcy had publicised the deal they dropped in the technology transfer bit.

Emefcy thankfully refused and CGGC picked up their bat and ball and disappeared.

Speculation on my behalf and we will never really know. The Emefcy board certainly made mistakes, but were they deliberate attempts to mislead and defraud shareholders as you suggest?

Personally I believe that the market and shareholders really did not fully understand the hard slog and long time frame involved in getting a new disruptive tech accepted and selling at good volumes. When this was realised it surely was a major reason for the savage shareprice decline after

all the previous enthusiasm?

Must admit I must be one of the few hopefuls left despite being well underwater but the potential of iTEST, the increasing tendency for MABR to be specified in tenders particularly tenders from government owned entities as they mostly are, has given me some confidence there is light at the end of the tunnel (and it's not the headlight of an oncoming train). With Aspiral we only need to get a relatively small percentage of the overall Chinese small to medium new installations to make a very good business there.

It's all too easy to blame everyone except ourselves when faced with potential sharemarket losses.

regards, EB