Member Info for DrAnomoly

Testpack, your detective work on usernames is about as riveting as a wet weekend. You can call me Mickey Mouse if you like — the irony is, even a cartoon mouse had more charm and coherence than your essays.

The AGM/fundraise gripe? You’ve recycled it so often it could qualify for its own carbon credits. Yes, the board said one thing and raised the next day. Everyone saw it, everyone noted it, and you repeating it for the hundredth time doesn’t turn it into fresh news.

On syngas analysis: you keep insisting none exists. The reality is G3 data was published, BOC validated it, and the FTU has been commissioned and run. If you don’t like the disclosure strategy, fine. But pretending that means ‘nothing happened’ is just daft.

And the Shell tangent? If your point was really so clear, you wouldn’t need to keep issuing translation notes about what you ‘meant.’

The truth is you’re not unmasking conspiracies, you’re just chasing me around the board with recycled nicknames and tired gripes. Even Mickey, whistling on the deck of Steamboat Willie, managed to make more sense than you have in 5,000 repeated words.

Testpack, thank you for yet another lecture on Shell plc’s inner psyche. I’m sure their board will be devastated you’ve cracked their secret motto.

Here’s the thing: nobody on this board thinks PHE is competing head-to-head with Shell’s trillion-dollar refining business. Quoting their latest strategic U-turn doesn’t prove anything about DMG, it just fills another page of your diary.

‘Wealth Not Health’ might look clever under your post, but it’s not insight — it’s just slogan-writing. If you’ve got something specific about PHE, the FTU, or the tech, stick to that. Otherwise, Shell doesn’t need your PR critique, and neither do we.”

Red, thank you for the close reading — I’ll be sure to hand my next essay in double-spaced with references.

Yes, the share price is down. Arithmetic noted. Repeating it in bold letters still doesn’t turn it into analysis.

On the CMD/fundraise, ‘clumsy’ is the polite word for saying the board handled it badly. If you prefer ‘mishandled,’ ‘poorly communicated,’ or ‘shot themselves in the foot,’ take your pick — the meaning doesn’t change. It was raised, it annoyed investors, and no amount of caps lock alters that.

As for your FCA/NOMAD fantasy — no, they don’t check ‘every company event 365 days a week.’ But if they thought a breach had occurred, it wouldn’t be left to your posts to uncover it. That’s the overreach.

And finally, on ‘years’ — forgive me for not bringing a stopwatch to the CMD. It just feels like years, because you bring it up in every other post. When you’ve got something fresher than March, do let us know.

Testpack, you’ve mistaken me for someone who takes you seriously. To be offended, I’d need a shred of respect for your arguments — which I don’t. That’s why I answer as I please, not because I’m dancing to your tune.

You keep ranting about disclosure as if AIM rules are whatever you imagine them to be. Here’s the boring reality: NOMADs don’t sit there RNS’ing every lab run, kettle boil or bolt tightened. They advise on what is material. Internal and customer feedstock runs are not automatically market-sensitive — unless you think the entire chemical industry has been in breach for decades.

You then ask ‘why not just publish the gas analysis’ like it’s a smoking gun. Here’s why: customer feedstock results are covered by NDAs. Publishing that data without consent would break contracts, not prove transparency. That’s called standard commercial practice. If you can’t grasp that, maybe write to the NOMAD instead of endlessly recycling the same paragraph here.

As for your cartoon obsession — I’m flattered you’ve spent so much time workshopping nicknames, but it’s not landing. You’ve flogged the Fraud line so hard even Disney wouldn’t option it.

And finally, you trot out the ‘AGMs are just promotion’ line again. Yes, companies present positively at AGMs — shocker. But they are still formal company record. If you don’t believe them, that’s your problem. What it doesn’t do is make me stupid for quoting what was actually said.

So keep tallying my posts and recycling your greatest hits. The only thing you’re proving is how desperate you are for me to notice.

Dusty, you’ve nailed it — Red’s like one of those industrial Hoovers at a car wash. Get too close and he’ll suck out your will to live, plus any loose change in your pockets. Brain Fried’s the natural end state. The thing is, I can do this all day — and one day he might even realise I enjoy it.

Red, you can paste John’s LOLs or count percentages all day long, but none of it changes the facts. Yes, the share price has cratered. Nobody’s denying that. But repeating ‘93% down’ like a parrot isn’t analysis, it’s just arithmetic.

On the CMD/fundraise point, I’ve already said it was clumsy. The board said one thing, then raised straight after. It annoyed investors, it dented trust, and nobody’s pretending otherwise. But to call it a ‘breach of FCA regs’ is you overreaching again — if the NOMAD or the FCA thought it was a breach, you’d have seen consequences by now. You haven’t.

What’s left, then? More recycled digs, more nicknames, and another attempt to frame silence on your hobbyhorses as ‘losing the debate.’ If I’ve ‘run out of new material,’ what does that say about you when you’re still wheeling out the same CMD gripe years later?

You want novelty? Try coming up with something that isn’t déjà vu every time you hit ‘post.

Red, this is the same old dirge dressed up as analysis: no tests, no trials, no partners. All untrue. The FTU has been commissioned, customer feedstocks have been run, Engsolve are still in the mix, and Avioxx is a live project. Funding has been raised — you might not like the dilution, but pretending it doesn’t exist is daft.

And the ‘someone bigger will just do it’ argument is lazy. If it were that simple, one of the ‘much larger organisations’ you keep invoking would already be running DMG-equivalents. They’re not. PHE holds the IP, which is precisely why outsiders would need to license or buy in.

As for your 1p takeover fantasy — you can keep that for your bedtime stories. If you think Shell, BP or anyone else is going to snap up a patented modular tech for loose change, you’ve misunderstood how M&A works.

In short: you don’t strengthen your case by repeating the same lines louder. You just remind everyone you’ve run out of new ones.”

Of course it was, Red. The old ‘it was a joke’ routine when you’ve run out of argument. If the best you’ve got left is hiding behind LOLs and winks, then you’ve just proved my point — the debating cupboard’s bare.

Here we go again, Testpack — back like an unwanted rash, convinced shouting ‘must RNS!’ is the ace up your sleeve.

Here’s the reality: AIM Rule 11 requires disclosure of material price-sensitive information. Not every lab run, not every internal test. Materiality is judged with the NOMAD, which is precisely why they exist in AIM — to filter what needs to hit the market and what doesn’t. If your version were true, there’d be an RNS every time someone at Bridgend boiled a kettle.

Customer trials sit under NDAs. That means the data exists, but it isn’t public until there’s something commercially material to release. That’s how AIM works, whether you like the pacing or not. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make you an expert; it makes you sound like you’ve never read the rulebook.

And as for the endless nicknames, the chemtrail tangents, and your tallying of how many times I post — that’s not analysis, that’s diary-keeping with delusions. You want to look sharp? Stick to facts. Right now, the only thing your posts prove is how hard you’re working to look foolish

Oh hum, the ‘Fraud’ line again. Honestly, Testpack, if you had a pound for every time you wheeled that out, you might actually beat PHE’s market cap. You’ve flogged that line so hard the horse is dust, and even the glue factory’s shut down.

And as for confidentiality — let’s be explicit. NDAs don’t make anyone look stupid. They’re standard commercial practice. What does look stupid is you pretending not to understand that, and parroting the same busted argument as if repetition makes it true.

If you genuinely wanted clarity, you’d do what I already told your cohort to do: ask the NOMAD. The AGM was recorded, the minutes exist, and you could confirm it tomorrow. But of course, facts don’t fit your routine — so instead we get reheated nicknames and bad takes.

Confidentiality doesn’t make us look stupid, Testpack. It’s you who ends up looking foolish every time you wheel this out.

Red, when your counter-argument boils down to a string of LOLs, it says more about the quality of your debating than the share price.

Tom’s been calling doom at every level. You can laugh all you like, but repeating yourself with extra O’s doesn’t suddenly make you the oracle.

Red, you’ve built yourself a strawman and then demanded I fight it. Nobody said PHE are obliged to RNS every feedstock sample they test internally. What was said at the AGM is simple: the FTU has been commissioned, tested in-house, and also run with customer feedstocks. That’s the record.

How many customers? That detail hasn’t been published, and like every other AIM stock, it won’t be until the company chooses to disclose. That’s how markets work. Speculating about whether it’s ‘one or ten’ doesn’t turn your guess into fact any more than mine.

So let’s be clear: I’m not claiming every test needs an RNS. I’m saying tests have been carried out and customers have been involved—that was confirmed publicly. You can dislike the level of disclosure, fair enough, but pretending nothing’s happened is just false.

Red, nobody said PHE need to RNS every coffee order. But commissioning a new feedstock run isn’t the same as changing the Nespresso pods. The distinction’s obvious to most.

As for the fundraise—yes, they said no raise was needed at CMD and then announced one the next day. It was clumsy comms, no argument there. But that doesn’t erase the AGM record or the fact the FTU has run with customer feedstocks.

And no, I’m not wound up because Tom ‘called it.’ He’s been predicting collapse since 7p, 3p, 1p—it’s hardly unique insight to say a struggling AIM stock will raise cash. If repeating that gives him an audience, fair play.

But let’s be clear: deflection with coffee brands and ‘Tom was right’ quips doesn’t change the core facts. It just shows you’ve run out of better lines.

Red, AGM statements aren’t ‘gospel,’ they’re company record. Unless you’ve got evidence to the contrary, what Paul Emmitt said still stands until the company updates it.

Yes, things move in six months, but changes get flagged to the market via RNS, not via forum guesswork. If you’ve worked across businesses, you’ll know published reports reflect tested capability and qualified engineering input, not just someone tipping random feedstock into the kiln for a laugh.

So let’s separate facts from guesses: AGM confirmed commissioning and customer runs. SP Angel reported the breadth of waste streams, which will have come from company data. Your ‘guess’ that they made it all up and threw in tyres and hazardous waste without basis is just that—a guess.

By all means speculate, but don’t dress it up as a revelation. At least when I quote, it’s from the AGM record—not from daydreams about LinkedIn posts.

Dusty, I think we both know if Oliver Twist turned up here, Red would tell him the gruel wasn’t commercially viable and then write 1,000 words on why the bowl was stainless steel.

As for ‘zero minge’—you might be onto something. That level of negativity isn’t exactly an aphrodisiac. Hard to whisper sweet nothings when you’re busy arguing about polypropylene.

Red, the irony isn’t lost on anyone — you telling me ‘it’s not your private forum’ while posting and reposting the same lines, like you own the place.

On substance: Shell scrapping a £2bn SAF refinery has nothing to do with a modular DMG unit in Wales. Different scale, different economics, different game entirely.

And mocking Avioxx for being small misses the point — it’s a pilot. That’s what pilots do: prove the kit and the model before scaling. Laughing at it for not being Shell-sized is like mocking a prototype plane because it doesn’t carry 300 passengers on day one.

So yes, industry news is welcome. Just spare us the strawmen. It’s not your private forum either.

Just for you Red - item 1 on their agenda:

8:30 Breakfast Croissants and home made jam, tea, coffee, juice. No alcohol at this stage, the bar will serve Wrexham lager Cheshire Cat Ale, Prosecco , Red wine and Rose from10 AM onwards

Red, here's the website as i'm sure you know https://www.sharestock.co.uk/ - there a free plug for them, apologies to anyone wanting to go, but it is sold out. Now, maybe it's lost in translation, but yes, I don't take it very seriously, and my writing can have a little bit of flippancy about it. I try to keep myself entertained.

If you are going Red, enjoy it's a free country. Say hello from me to the other 99 attendees at the 'sold out' event.

Red, this isn’t my opinion—it’s what was stated at the AGM. Paul Emmitt confirmed the FTU commissioning and customer feedstock runs. You didn’t make yourself known there, so I’ll assume you didn’t attend.

If you doubt what was said, the simple route is to ask the NOMAD for the official meeting minutes. The AGM was recorded, so you don’t need to rely on me—you can check it directly.