Member Info for H2hooo

Ah, Red — the accidental comedian. “I haven’t been here for years,” you say, immediately after reminding everyone you were here 15 years ago debating PHE. That’s not a flex, mate, that’s a full-blown geological time span. You’ve outlasted CEOs, governments, and half the forum’s collective patience.

As for the idea that I’m “performing” — no, Red. I’m replying. The fact that it reads like performance to you is probably just a shock to the system after scrolling through your usual single-line jabs and recycled bitterness. I respond with detail because substance still matters — even if it clearly makes you uncomfortable.

And let’s be honest: the “stop turning things back on people” line is a beautiful irony coming from the bloke who’s been doing nothing but that since he showed up. If your posts had any more projection, they’d need a widescreen format and popcorn.

Anyway, enjoy your stay — whether it’s a comeback tour or just another bitter intermission. Just don’t pretend to float above the noise while furiously contributing to it.

Red, your obsession with what you think I’ve lost is far more revealing than anything I’ve written. I’ve never posted a target price, never ramped a position, and never once told anyone to follow me, just an open invite to the telegram group. That fantasy lives entirely in your head — rent free, along with my username history and apparent age.

You keep insisting you're not bothered, yet here you are again, counting usernames, rewriting motives, and trying to score points like this is some sort of AIM-themed talent show. You say I sound “old and bitter” — but mate, you’ve been writing the same angry monologue for years. If anyone’s circling the drain, it’s the bloke who’s still furious about what someone said in 2018.

So here’s your reality check: your approval means nothing to me. I don’t need to meet your imagined “posting criteria” because I’m not performing for you. And whether I reply or ignore you in future will depend on one thing only — whether I can be bothered. Not because you’ve earned it, and certainly not because you’re entitled to it.

Now feel free to have the last word — I know how much you live for it.

Red, I’m not creating rules — I’m just not playing by yours. You don’t get to lecture others on waffle while posting your 40th variation of the same recycled gripe. If anyone needs to “move on,” it’s the guy still bringing up posts from three usernames ago like he’s curating a museum of imagined slights.

But do carry on — just don’t confuse being loud with being right.

Red, if no one cares, then why do you keep replying? You say your comments “aren’t aimed at me” — right after quoting me, referencing my posts, and tagging me like a needy satnav trying to stay relevant. If that’s your idea of a “general comment,” then I’d hate to see what a targeted one looks like.

And for the record, I don’t need the last word — I just tend to have the last word because your replies rarely warrant a second. You keep circling back, trying to pretend this is all beneath you, yet here you are again, tapping away like someone very interested in what I have to say.

So by all means, keep pretending you’re aloof. Just don’t be surprised when no one believes it — not even you.

Red, let me be perfectly clear, since this seems to keep slipping through the cracks of your self-importance: I don’t owe you — or anyone else — an explanation for when, why, or whether I choose to engage. If I respond, it’s on my terms, not yours. I’m not here to spoon-feed you updates, nor to perform for a panel of self-declared forum auditors who confuse entitlement with insight.

Yes, PHE made statements about commissioning and testing — and yes, updates were hinted at. That’s between the company and its shareholders. If you feel misled, take it up with IR. What I’m not going to do is indulge the idea that just because you or Hypocrite Testpack are stamping your feet, the rest of us are somehow obligated to dance.

Let’s be honest — this isn’t curiosity, it’s your usual passive-aggressive theatre. If I don’t respond, you claim I’ve lost the argument. If I do, you cry “rattled.” It’s tedious, circular, and predictable. The only real consistency here is how desperately you both want to be proven right, and how tiresome it’s become to watch.

So yes — I may reply. I may not. But just so we’re all clear: that decision will never be based on your approval.

Ah, Hypocrite Testpack — back again with your trademark blend of smug demands and seething paranoia. You love to phrase things as “simple questions” while dressing them up in conspiratorial drivel, as if typing “AI misinformation duo” gives your argument more weight than the usual bile.

Let’s get one thing straight: we don’t owe you anything. Not answers, not validation, and certainly not the courtesy you consistently fail to show anyone else. Respect is a two-way street, and you've been stuck on the pavement for years, flinging mud at passing traffic.

FTU = Feedstock Testing Unit. Congratulations — you've read a line from a presentation slide. As for the results? They’ll be released when the company decides to publish them, not when you stamp your feet and demand answers like a kid outside a locked sweet shop. Cold commissioning is exactly that — preliminary operations, not public R&D theatre for your personal entertainment.

The real question is: who exactly do you think you are? You wander around this board like a self-appointed inquisitor, sneering at everyone’s motives while never disclosing your own. You treat every post that doesn’t mirror your despair as part of a paid propaganda campaign — which, frankly, says more about your detachment from reality than it does about anyone else's agenda.

So here’s your answer: the FTU is being tested. Updates will come when they come. And no, they won’t be expedited just to satisfy the bitter curiosity of a man who’s spent the last five years accusing anyone with a differing opinion of being part of a plot.

You’ve set the tone, Testpack. Don’t act shocked when it’s returned in kind.

Let’s be clear-eyed and level-headed. The Eunomia report doesn’t claim that Powerhouse’s DMG process is already certified under the UK Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard — but it does provide a strong, independent foundation suggesting that we could be in a very competitive position as that standard is finalised and applied.

The report models our hydrogen production emissions and compares them directly with other mainstream methods — like natural gas SMR, both with and without CCS, and renewable electrolysis. The standout finding? If you account for the fact that our feedstock is unrecyclable plastic that would otherwise be incinerated — a fair assumption given our current supply — then DMG hydrogen not only competes, it outperforms. And not marginally: it achieves a net saving in emissions compared to other production methods.

Now, there’s nuance here. The current draft of the UK Government’s hydrogen standard doesn’t yet include credits for avoided incineration. But there is precedent, and policy is evolving. The waste sector itself is targeting net zero by 2040, and our technology is CCS-ready — giving us another lever for future compliance. We're skating where the puck is going, not where it is.

Is that a rubber stamp of approval? No. But it’s a strong indication that we are not only aligned with where the market and regulation are heading, but potentially ahead of it. We are doing the hard yards now — validating, refining, preparing. That’s not spin. That’s strategic realism.

So if you’re looking for a silver bullet, you won’t find it here. What you will find is a robust, independently-modelled emissions profile, a feedstock reality that gives us credit where credit’s due, and a technology built with future compliance in mind.

I can probably help you here Divvyup, this was a report done a few years back, it was on an earlier version of the PHE website so happy to share a link from my drive. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-D1OCYETsxHJe2_jxURTiMh4-aizlpy4/view?usp=sharing

Look, I help run both the PHE and HUI Telegram boards, and I don’t buy into this Montague-and-Capulet hydrogen drama one bit. It’s all a bit “Titanic vs Marie Rose”, when actually we’re all still building the damn ships and arguing over the colour of the sails.

Let’s be honest — both PHE and HUI are trying to solve the same thorny global problem: how to deal with the rising tide of unrecyclable waste while producing something useful like hydrogen. It’s a complex challenge. Not everyone will survive the crossing. But this idea that one has to fail for the other to succeed is just bad logic in a fast-expanding market.

The waste-to-energy sector is growing globally at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of over 6%, and the hydrogen market is forecast to hit $410 billion+ by 2030. There is room. There is demand. There will be multiple winners — especially those with IP, partnerships, or demonstrators, even if they’re still getting the stabilisers off.

Also, for the record, Chinook, InEnTec, PHE, HUI, Hazer, and the rest all use different feedstock pre-treatment and thermal conversion methods. Bolting on a hydrogen separation unit doesn’t change the upstream risk, the capex challenge, or the legislative hurdles. You’re still building a commercial road through regulatory fog.

And here's the kicker: pitting two outfits against each other in a zero-sum game while the multinationals are eating their lunch globally is like watching two hamsters fight over a grape while a hippo's headed to the fruit bowl.

We need less sneering, more scanning — of the market, of policy trends, of technology readiness. Real value will come when one of these companies moves from press release to purchase order. Until then, it's all just foreplay.

So rather than pointing fingers at who's sinking faster, let’s celebrate any firm in this space that's still paddling — because in the end, we need more than one to cross the commercialisation finish line.

So here’s where I’m at: I’ve never posted under multiple handles to mislead. I’ve never hidden behind false claims. I’ve never offered financial advice dressed up as gospel. I’ve just shared thoughts on a company I believed in, until the board got so toxic with bad-faith actors and bitter crusaders that most reasonable people either left or went quiet. And you? You stayed. Like a damp tea towel draped across the oven door, still convinced you’re vital to the process.

For anyone who’s had enough of the noise: the Telegram group’s open. It’s moderated — not to silence debate, but to stop this kind of relentless dreck from suffocating every conversation. Castlepaul, if you’re reading — I overreacted. You’re welcome back if you want to rejoin.

And Red, Testpack — congratulations. You’ve managed to live down to my expectations and still somehow disappoint. Now off you trot. Go write your closing statement. Make it dramatic. Pretend it’s the final scene in your courtroom drama of imagined slights. I’m done playing the straight man in your fantasy.

Oh Red. Still swinging wildly in the dark, convinced you’re the last bastion of truth on an AIM bulletin board, when in reality you’re just a man shouting into a pub mirror at closing time. Let’s get the boring bit out of the way first: yes, I used the publicly available end-of-year cash figure and the declared post-period raise to arrive at an estimated bank balance. No, I didn’t include a seven-month cash flow breakdown, because unlike you, I don’t pretend to have access to PHE’s internal burn figures or payroll. I gave a rounded figure, you filled the air with “deliberately misleading!” like you’d caught me falsifying war records. Newsflash: quoting numbers from RNS statements isn’t a crime. Making up outrage when you already agree with the maths is just... well, very you.

Now, onto your latest episode. You accuse me of being childlike for pointing out your hypocrisy — while doing exactly that, line after line. You claim I lack credibility after “years of false predictions,” yet never manage to quote a single one. You say I mislead others, while wildly speculating about cash burn and calling it a public service. The cognitive dissonance is almost poetic.

As for the PhD nonsense — that wasn't even yours originally, was it? That was Testpack’s pet conspiracy. He's the one who turned my old avatar Dr.Anomaly — a name borrowed from a 1950s Marvel oddity — into a Dan Brown subplot and has been dragging it around like a wounded ego ever since. I ignored it for years, but I suppose nostalgia got the better of me, and I peeked back under the bridge recently only to find the same old troll, still muttering about qualifications like it’s a court transcript. And now here you are, proudly marching in step beside him — two bitter men in a three-legged race of irrelevance. What’s the phrase? Birds of a feather…

You say people follow boards like this for investment guidance — maybe some do. But unlike you, I’ve never claimed authority over anyone’s decisions. I’ve never posted price targets. Never told anyone to buy, sell, or do anything other than think critically. You seem very keen to pin blame on people who posted in good faith, while conveniently ignoring that everyone here has a choice, a brain, and a free will. That’s not “ramping” — that’s reality.

As for the “Kiwi/Aussie” line — nah, you weren’t joking. You just got it wrong, didn’t realise, and now you’re playing it off like banter. Let’s call it what it is: lazy stereotyping, wrapped in a weak punchline, followed by the usual self-justifying smirk.

Oh Red, you’re nothing if not consistent: consistently wrong, consistently loud, and consistently convinced that opinion shouted loudly enough becomes truth. Let’s start with your latest accusation — that I “deliberately quoted a misleading bank balance.” No, I didn’t. I used the public figure from December (£1.31m) and added the clearly stated £1.375m raise post-period. That gives you £2.685m before expenditure. Now, unless you’re moonlighting in the PHE finance team or the HMRC, your “common sense” adjustment is just back-of-napkin scribble dressed up as gospel. You can throw around words like “deliberate” and “misleading” all day, but unless you’ve got the books open in front of you, what you’re offering is exactly what you accuse me of: speculation. As for this waffle claim — funny coming from a man who’s dished out enough of it to open a Belgian café. You say I post no facts, but every post of yours is built on projections, bitterness, and the vague whiff of a grudge dating back several fundraises. Then you circle back to the qualifications — again. You keep bringing it up like it’s a scandal that I’ve had more than one username or that I referenced my PhD in economics. Shocking, isn’t it, that someone might want to speak with credibility in a sea of noise? And you accusing others of “waffle” while adopting the name “DrAl” for satire is the kind of irony you only see in low-budget farce. You ask what gives me the right to be condescending — well, Red, it’s the fact that I take the time to reply to your increasingly frazzled essays with something that resembles logic and consistency. I don’t need to win a popularity contest, but at least I’m not swinging wildly at anyone who posts an optimistic sentence about PHE. Oh, and Swazers? You’ve been obsessing over him for months. If he’s so wrong and irrelevant, why do you treat him like your North Star in reverse? You say we’ve cost people money — no Red, people make their own decisions. No one forced anyone to buy or sell based on a forum post, and if they did, that’s on them — not me, not Swazers, and certainly not your running commentary. And finally, let’s deal with your charming sign-off — I’m a Kiwi, not an Aussie. You might think they’re the same, but that’s the sort of casual ignorance that tends to colour all your posts. Still, I’ll take the soft spot, even if it’s coated in condescension and wrapped in your usual performative disdain. Always a pleasure, Red. Shall I pencil you in for the next meltdown?

Oh Red Hornet, you really do barrel in like a man halfway through an argument he wrote in his head hours ago. Let’s clear up your latest attempt at forum forensic work: I said there was around £2.5 million in the bank, based on the publicly stated £1.31 million at year-end and the £1.375 million fundraise post-period. That’s not “lotto jackpot” speculation — that’s basic arithmetic. What you’ve done is grab that same maths, subtract some hand-waved ‘burn’ without quoting a single line item, and then claim you’ve uncovered something shocking. Congratulations — you’ve successfully walked in a circle.

As for your opening jab — the attempted put-down about my “basic MSc” — aside from the fact that you’ve once again demonstrated a galloping inability to proofread your own post (“you’re” doing great), I’ve held a PhD since 2019. Didn’t see the need to splash it over every profile header, because unlike you, I don’t treat qualifications like Pokémon cards. But it’s cute that you immediately followed your accusation by announcing you’re a “qualified solicitor” — apparently unaware of the sheer hypocrisy of waving credentials while mocking others for them. Self-awareness clearly isn’t part of your legal training.

Your “BS Holdings Ltd” line is peak backpedal. You mocked it like it was real, realised it wasn’t, then retrofitted a bit of armchair irony to save face. It’s the intellectual version of slipping on a banana peel and then insisting you were just “doing a sketch”.

And now this fixation on how fast I reply — are you genuinely rattled by someone being more coherent and more efficient than you? You churn out entire manifestos accusing people of being paid rampers, then cry “desperate!” when someone claps back before tea. You’re not used to people replying in real time because your arguments usually land like farts in a vacuum — ignored out of mercy, not merit.

You haven’t outed anything. You haven’t corrected anything. You’ve just confirmed, again, that volume is no substitute for substance. You said you weren’t rattled — but here you are, typing like your keyboard owes you money.

And not fogetting...

5. “Get a life and a proper job.”

Coming from a man who’s dedicated the last few years to monitoring PHE posts like a part-time sentry at the Ministry of Negative Sentiment, it’s hard not to chuckle. You’re less “concerned shareholder” and more forum performance artist at this point.

Ah, Hypocrite Testpack – you’ve been busy, haven’t you? All the hallmarks are here: the attempted character assassination, the make-believe forensic accounting, and, naturally, the frothing at the keyboard because I dared to unfilter you on my own terms.

Let’s begin with the headline: you are now officially Hypocrite Testpack. Why? Because you’ve spent months peddling slander and conspiracy, accusing people of filtering, dodging, deleting – and now the mirror’s turned, you don’t like the view. Tough luck. You’ve earned the title, and until you actually answer the question I asked yesterday about that mysteriously removed post, you wear it like a cheap blazer at a job interview. Prove me wrong, or pipe down.

Now, let’s have a stroll through your latest scrapheap of logic.

1. “Your PhD is fake because your X profile says MSc.”

This is your big gotcha? Seriously? Not everyone wears their qualifications like a medal at a school sports day. The PhD was awarded in 2019, under Dr Frank Curry – a real person, a real institution, and a real thesis. That’s called evidence, something you appear to find offensive. But carry on, it’s fun watching you try to turn LinkedIn formatting into a court case.

2. “You had my post removed!”

Still avoiding this one, aren't you? I raised the point yesterday, and you ducked it like a spooked whippet. You throw accusations like confetti but recoil the moment someone holds you to your own standard. So here's the rule: if you're going to call me a fraud based on absolutely nothing, I’m going to call you Hypocrite Testpack based on your silence. It's called symmetry.

3. “£1m Engsolve income? How much is in-house?”

You toss this out like it's a mic-drop moment. Spoiler: it's not. Engsolve does work both internally and externally – that's called business. You demanding a precise internal-external revenue split without offering any data or context of your own is like a toddler asking for a five-year business plan from a lemonade stand. Try again, this time with sources.

4. “You filtered me but now you're reading my posts!”

Yes. Yes, I did. And I’m glad I did, because watching you spiral is some of the best unintentional comedy on the board. But let’s get one thing straight: when and why I unfilter you is entirely my decision. I don’t need your permission to check in and see if you’ve miraculously stopped calling everyone “fraud” and “rampers.” Spoiler again: you haven’t.

Think of it like checking on the bins. You don’t expect a surprise, but sometimes you just want to confirm the smell is coming from where you thought.

The irony, of course, is that you accuse me of obsession while:

Trawling through my social media

Keeping track of my old usernames

Demanding comment-by-comment rebuttals from strangers

Posting rants with the emotional tone of someone denied entry to Wetherspoons

If you genuinely weren’t rattled, you would

Ah, the classic “all hot air, no substance” line – usually wheeled out when someone runs out of facts and fancies a swing anyway. It’s the intellectual equivalent of throwing a shoe at a passing car: noisy, pointless, and more revealing about the thrower than the target.

Let’s unpack this, since you’ve asked for more than just bones:

1. Revenue and Profit

You casually toss out “£1m income, probably £300k profit” as if you’re reading from the accounts. Except you’re not. You’re estimating – badly. You’ve neither the detail nor the nuance. No cost breakdown, no EBITDA view, no CAPEX/OPEX split. Just vibes and vinegar.

2. Bank Balance Speculation

“There’s certainly not £2.5m left in the bank.”

Says who? You? Your dog? Mystic Meg? Until an audited statement says otherwise, your certainty is worth about as much as the broken calculator you’re using to do your sums.

3. Future Raise at 0.002p

You’re really hoping for that, aren’t you? It’s cute. Like someone standing outside a closed cinema shouting, “Told you the film was rubbish!” No one’s listening, but you do look committed.

4. “BS Holdings Ltd”

You mock a Letter of Intent, but you don’t address the actual content, the partner, the business model, or what it might mean strategically. You just sneer at the name. That’s not analysis – that’s playground-level distraction. It’s like dismissing Tesla because Elon once smoked a cigar on a podcast.

5. “You must be rattled”

Projection much? You’ve posted more in the last 24 hours than PHE has RNSs. If anyone’s rattled, it’s the guy refreshing the thread like he’s defusing a bomb.

And finally, if being “outed” means I once used an academic title that triggered the rage of an anonymous avatar with a keyboard and a chip on his shoulder, then so be it. I sleep soundly under the weight of my degree and the knowledge that some people can’t tell a PhD from a PDF.

But thanks for the invitation to write more – I do enjoy the sport.

More premium output from Red Hornet – Michelin-starred misery, freshly reheated.

“£1m income, probably at very best £300k profit...”

Ah yes, those classic Red Hornet financials – precise to the decimal and pulled entirely from the back pocket of his jeans (next to the pub receipt and last week’s rage-draft). He's like a budget Bloomberg terminal, but instead of data, you get drama.

“There’s certainly not £2.5m left in the bank…”

Yes, certainly, based on that well-known auditing qualification: a feeling in one’s waters. One suspects if PHE had £25m, he’d still insist it had all been secretly converted into magic beans and buried under a skip in Runcorn.

“Raise at 0.002p incoming…”

You can almost hear him rubbing his hands with glee at the idea, like Gollum spotting a discounted placing. Spoiler: he’ll be the first one back in if it hits that price – then claim it was always part of his master plan.

And the pièce de résistance:

“Letter of Intent from ‘BS Holdings Ltd’ – you have to laugh!!”

Indeed you do – mainly at the irony of Red Hornet mocking names while using one that sounds like a minor Marvel villain rejected for being too melodramatic.

The man could be handed a golden egg and he’d complain it wasn’t Fabergé.

£2.5m in bank - £1m Engsolve Income for 2025 so far. Timeline, best to look at the AGM presentation on the website. Now that FTU is complete, cash burn is lower.

Tired of repetitive rage-posts wrapped in faux facts and frothing indignation? Then it's time to play Red Hornet Bingo, the game that turns every screech into a square.

Simply tick off the phrases below every time our buzzing friend returns with another round of caffeine-fuelled grievance:

“Get a phucking life”

“100% facts”

“Cash runway!”

“No planning submitted!”

“Pretty sure I said this 12 months ago!”

“Several means four or more!!”

“Anyone else backing this up?”

“BS from paid rampers”

“Made it all up”

“You’re insecure!”

“PHE won’t survive”

“Liar!!”

Personal insults (bonus square!)

“No formal submission, pure BS”

“ETTO is clearly a fraud”

“Another fake account”

“Even Swazers knows the truth”

“Where’s the RNS?”

“Cash in the bank? LOL”

“Wake up you muppets!”

Rules of the Game:

Mark off a square every time Red Hornet posts something from the list.

First to complete a line wins the satisfaction of knowing you've spent less time obsessing than he has.

Shouting “Full House!” is optional but encouraged.

We may not all agree on PHE’s future, but we can agree this is the most entertainment anyone’s got out of a bad-tempered wasp in years. Ok, eyes down, you now have two games to play.

Ah, Red Hornet. That shrill, self-appointed auditor of forum integrity, armed with a dictionary he’s clearly never opened and a personality best described as "unrefined vinegar in a cracked thimble." "Several means four or more!" — he cries, as if the Queen’s English depends on his interpretation. What’s next? Telling Shakespeare he used too many metaphors? Or issuing a correction to Newton because an apple fell at the wrong angle?

And that tired refrain:

“Everything I post is based on 100% facts!” Well, so was Flat Earth theory… at one point. And I believe Nostradamus also once claimed certainty.

Now, on the topic of funding and PHE’s "runway" – bless you, Red. If only your insights came with even a basic spreadsheet. Instead, we’re gifted with the world’s longest tantrum disguised as due diligence.

And let’s not forget this golden nugget:

“Pretty sure I said the next 12 months would be make or break… 12 months ago.” Which is like saying: “I predicted winter, last winter, and guess what? It got cold!”

As for your desire to “hear from board experts” – might I suggest asking politely rather than flinging verbal custard at everyone like a rejected Bake Off contestant?

Lastly, thanks for the “get a life” advice – coming from someone who’s turned posting bitter rants about strangers into a full-time lifestyle blog, it’s deliciously ironic.