Member Info for Digitalis

Read it now. I think Dennis' comment is spot on. Worth noting that Greg is advocating for Locational Charging for transmission costs as part of the Government's Review of Electricity Market Arrangements REMA. An idea that has been thrown out before as just charging poor consumers more because they happen to not live where the wind turbine has been built is not necessarily something they can do anything about. It is this sort of nonsense that risks alienating people and is the kind of thing I meant below about Net Zero leaving people behind.

But using excess wind for Hydrogen instead of curtailing it and driving up BSUoS - yes absolutely

Thanks Vamosbien, I follow Dennis on LinkedIn, yet the algorithm refuses to show me his posts regularly for some reason, so thanks for posting, I'll take a look. I note that's what I said about curtailment apart from equating it to the amount of Hydrogen that could have been produced.

@Seaangler, wouldn't associate with me or who I associate with? I didn't say I associate with them or not. I said encounter. I encounter lots of different people in lots of places every day and conversations happen. I've also not said I agree with them. I do, however, believe in not restricting my acquaintances to people who only agree with me. That way leads to close-mindedness and ultimately risks descending into bigotry, therefore I prefer to hear all views and then form my opinion.

Recent utterances from the other side of the Atlantic, demonstrate that not everyone thinks as you do.

It is a discussion point that Net Zero risks leaving behind the less well off in society. I suspect most who have the funds to invest in ITM and therefore frequent these boards, are shielded from the costs of installing heat pumps and purchasing EV cars and generally increasing energy bills partly made up of subsidies such as FIT, RO, GGL, CfD, CM. ECO, not to mention the system costs of curtailment added to BSUoS and the upcoming massive uplift in Transmission and Distribution to get the power to where it is used. However, a large proportion of people in the UK do not have 1 month's salary in savings and cannot bear the brunt of that cost so well.

As I've already said there are more reasons than climate change to see a shift to hydrogen and I will clarify that to mean green hydrogen.

Likewise, fair enough. I tend to find that surveys often reflect the biases of the surveyors. Hence, why I suggest taking in multiple sources of information.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics - I believe was Mr Twain, but has been somewhat plagiarised by some to add surveys to that statement by some

Thanks GreenInvestor - that is good news and builds on what I said in my reply to Bilbo on the geo-politics

It was lazy writing by me, I corrected in my reply. I have no interest in entering in to a debate on abstract socio-economic theory at the moment. I'd posit a guess that no-one else on this board is interested either.

Suffice to say, as I have said before, there are lots of very good reasons for a shift to Hydrogen in addition to climate change.

I like to broaden my sources of information of all types to aid my critical thinking. Regardless of whether I agree with views or not.

In my experience, the majority of people I encounter do not see the threat of increasing temperature, or if they do, do not agree that it is anthropomorphic in nature. On the other hand, in the energy policy meetings it is treated as an inviolable fact. Highlighting the need for people to get out of their respective echo chambers.

I think if you were to look at Maslov's hierarchy, the majority of individuals are more concerned about their own personal security and the whereabouts of their next meal than whether hiking their energy bills to address something less immediate in their eyes. I make no statement as to whether that is a sensible position or not. Just highlighting that an understanding of individuals perceptions and motivations is important.

I equally support anyone who reduces energy use or otherwise ensures a clean and healthy environment.

@troublesome, thank you for your advice. However, I believe that resorting to imputations and insults generally implies that an argument is being lost.

I confess to finding SpicyTuna's schadenfreude at their own investment apparently halving somewhat perverse, however, I see no evidence of lies. Pessimism, cynicism and hyperbole, yes, outright lies, no. However I did challenge the statement on main investors divesting as patently inaccurate and absurd, but even that could have been exaggeration based on pessimism rather than an outright lie.

I have my own suspicions on various posters motivations, the good thing for me as the only individual I control, is that I don't allow other people's opinions to form mine. I will, however, take insight from any source backed with adequate evidence.

As I have said before, never gamble more than one can afford to lose. I will be disappointed if this great company (in my view) fails but history is littered with great ideas/companies failing through perverse societal decisions. Such is life.

@Bilbo, I think geopolitically, the events of the last few weeks will have considerable impact. They have shown that hitching the wagon to states focused on exporting petrochemicals is dangerous in the extreme. It leaves one at the mercy of their whims. Energy Security screams for home-produced Hydrogen, but politicians are incapable of moving quickly until forced, their default position and that of civil servants is to maintain the status quo. The shift is happening, Angela Knight former CEO of Energy UK was on GB News last night speaking sense about the fact that mass electrification is too expensive (see my previous posts for why). It is only a small leap now for the penny to drop on Hydrogen.

Climate change is too big a concept for the average person to comprehend how their actions make a difference - energy security on the hand and potential for global conflict makes the case for Hydrogen much more immediate than climate change ever did.

@SpicyTuna, that is pure speculation with no evidence. I've already demonstrated to you that 56.7 percent of the shares are in the hands of named investors. Those main investors have not exited. There were also solid reasons for the drop from £3 to £1 on cashburn, losses, test failure and sales (lack) as Bilbo frequently pointed out. The drop from £1 has no underlying obvious cause other that follow on sentiment and the fact that the business has still seen cash outflow. The foundations of the business have been addressed by Dennis and yet posters on here still come back and say it is all broken, patently untrue. In the short-term the SP may continue to drop but I'm not here for the short-term, I'm invested for the long-term and this will pass. I still have the same number of shares today I had yesterday with the future value I perceive in them.

Hi @SpicyTuna, that's your opinion and such is your prerogative. As I have mentioned before I disagree with you. I don't think Qube have any better insight than any other speculator. There shorting history looks like a drunk on their way home after a heavy night out. That doesn't indicate to me that they have a strong conviction. Indeed, one could argue that increasing the short at the moment is no different to being long and increasing the investment further when the price rises. Both are gambles.

I've learnt a lot from this stock, I first dipped a toe in the water around the £3 mark and watched that shrink, did more research, read @Bilbo and his legitimate criticisms of Graham and decided to invest a bit more at the £1 level, based on that being a more reasonable valuation of assets x technology multiple. From a forward looking perspective, I maintain the drops from £1 to current levels are oversold and the stock is undervalued but is being driven by the cashburn. Once that is eradicated (by increased revenue as we both and others have said) then there is no reason why the stock should not recover. I can no more predict exactly when that cashburn will be dealt with than anyone else but I know I'd rather be here now than after the "herd" gets here (cheers Bilbo again). That's my opinion and my prerogative.

You mention lack of buyers but there is also a lack of sellers, more than half of the shares are in the hands on named investors. No more than 5 million of 616 million shares are traded daily and often less. So for the most part, no-one is selling in any kind of volume.

I'm not one to give advice on investment strategy as a self-declared novice, but on this occasion I am minded to suggest that you divest yourself of the stake you said you took at 54/55p and maybe buy back in at 25p if that is where you think it is going?

@SpicyTuna you seem to be suggesting that there is some insider trading take place if Qube know something that isn't public knowledge?

I agree with you @Dibs, 6-7 Neptunes a month would do the trick. But they aren't there yet more's the pity. But the market is valuing at less than cash in bank, with no IP uplift for a technology stock which traditionally is 4x multiple so on that basis it "ought" to be around the £1.20 level, even if no mark up for the existing order book and future prospects - which on the surface look promising.

Instead the SP is just getting walked down constantly on no substantive information with really thin volumes (on average no more that 2 percent of the share volume per day). So buyers just aren't buying, as you say sentiment. That's letting the sellers keep pushing it down.

I still sit here saying every bit of public information I can find suggests this is oversold and undervalued. Investing is over the long term. Yes I might have an opportunity cost of keeping cash tied up here rather than in some other stock, but my crystal ball is cloudy so I wouldn't know when the worm will turn or where would be better to buy instead.

I know. It has been pure theatre. At 5 seconds a post to read, you could have had the benefit of about 4 minutes of Morecambe & Wise standard of comedy. All for free. Been keeping me amused all day while watching the cricket and the rugby.

I agree with your logic @hairydavey, the market, however, is so often ruled by emotion rather than logic unfortunately. Having said which, eventually, logic will win out.

All the talk of going lower 30p never comes with a reason why it would do that, only fear, conflation and past performance - all the things we know to ignore

@Bilbo, you're depriving yourself of minutes of free amusement with the green filter

I think the contagion was yesterday, already bounced off the low this morning (hopefully it stays off)

That's equally fair @SpicyTuna, everyone has an opinion. I may be right, you may be right or we may both be wrong. Not sure what outcome that leads to.

I'm reminded of a couple of things.

Hanlon's Razor - "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity" - the SP down at these levels resisting all good news alerts could easily just be stupidity missing the signs of prospects.

Occam's Razor - "the simplest answer is usually the correct one" - as @Bilbo so often says "Cashburn" and indeed you did, breakeven. We need lots of Neptunes or a couple, of big FIDs

I topped up but I'm also now at my limit for AIM stock. I have a decent number of shares, a reasonable recovery sees me in a nice position, on the other hand if it goes pop, I'll still be here - as I've said before never gamble more than one can afford to lose.

Finally there's an old Russian saying/joke - a pessimist glumly says "at least things can't get any worse", the optimist cheerfully replies "oh, yes they could"!

If we don't have a sense of humour we have nothing.

Pretty sure Mr M has taken that decision already https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5901/cmselect/cmpubacc/351/report.html

As I've said before it is not sensible in my opinion. If you mean the HAR2 decisions then yes, hopefully they will be.

I can't write to him, not my MP.

Tried to think of some humour for this reply but failed.

Not at all AATH, just a little light relief amongst all the seriousness and was off the back of a relevant post from Gazelleman. But if you had ever sat in on some of DESNZ decision meetings you would get the reference. Remember this is the same DESNZ with Mr Miliband spaffing £22B into Carbon Capture