Member Info for JeffMills

Gotta laugh at spicy acting like 25p to 78p is nothing — just brushing it off like it doesn’t count because we’re not back at the 400p fundraise yet. Mate, you bought in at 50p, didn’t you? Maybe let the actual long-term holders worry about that one.

You turned up halfway through the crash and now you’re pretending 200% off the bottom is irrelevant? You’re not fooling anyone. You’re in profit and still moaning — that’s the part no one takes seriously.

Here we go again — spicytuna, sitting on 67,000 shares, claiming every ITM RNS is “pointless,” every rise is meaningless, and every development is somehow still a red flag. It’s getting ridiculous.

You can't hold that kind of position and spend months telling everyone there’s nothing to see — that’s either the worst conviction trade of all time, or you’re playing both sides for attention. Either way, the logic collapsed a long time ago.

No value in Neptune V scaling, no value in being selected for multi-100MW projects, no value in turning around a company that was actively in freefall last year? All while sitting in profit?

If you really believed what you keep posting, you’d have been out at 50p, not sitting here narrating every single leg up like it’s a mistake. The market’s re-rating ITM based on execution, not hope — and clearly, you missed the turn. Disgusting behaviour imo.

ITM isn’t potential anymore. It’s leadership, backed by momentum. Exciting year ahead.

What’s wild is how quickly the picture has shifted. Just a few months ago, there was still a big IF hanging over whether ITM would actually be central to the UK’s hydrogen rollout. Long-term holders always believed they would be — but let’s be honest, after that last rise, even the market didn’t fully trust them.

Now look: selected for Uniper, another major project of similar scale, plus a smaller one already announced — and I wouldn’t be surprised if we see more coming in the next few weeks.

We’re not just participating — we’re becoming the go-to PEM supplier across the UK, EU, and even Asia. The market’s waking up to that reality, and after yesterday’s news, I wouldn’t be shocked at all to see us hit 90p today.

Momentum’s back. This time, backed by real delivery.

Quite something how both Spicy and Fahrenheit have gone silent at the exact same time. Must be exhausting having to log in twice just to be wrong.

In the past few months we’ve already landed 120MW with Uniper, another HAR2 project which could be 100–200MW, plus the 300MW APAC deal. That’s over 500MW in the pipeline now, not even counting what’s still to come. Once even a portion of that hits FID and turns into booked revenue, the numbers change fast.

You can’t look at this like it’s a sleepy capex burn story anymore — this is a scaling manufacturing business in a sector that’s just getting started. Profit’s coming, yeah, but the re-rate happens before that if the market sees a clear path. And that path’s getting clearer by the month.

FIDs aren’t landing tomorrow, but they’re coming – Uniper’s aiming for 2026, RWE (which I believe todays is) probably around the same once planning’s done. I reckon we start seeing the first big ones drop late 2025 into early 2026.

By then, if ITM keeps the momentum – more project wins, strong execution, Poseidon performing – and a couple of these land with serious megawattage, I don’t see why this isn’t a £2+. You’d have firm contracts locked, revenue visibility, and a manufacturing setup that’s finally scaled. Once the market starts pricing in actual delivery rather than potential, this could re-rate fast. I’m hoping we test £1 by eow.

Based on how they’re using the term lately, I’d say we’re probably talking 100–200 MW. Especially since the Uniper Humber H2ub – which is 120 MW.

If this new HAR2 project is being described in the same way, it’s likely in that same range. They’re not going to call a 20–30 MW project “large-scale” anymore, not with the direction they’re going.

Fantastic news. RWE's Grangemouth surely?

Grangemouth is targeting up to 200 MW of electrolyser capacity, making it one of the biggest HAR2 projects out there. That fits exactly with ITM’s language—calling it “large-scale,” using POSEIDON, and aiming at decarbonising local industry,

Let’s just take a second to appreciate the fact that spicytuna, self-appointed expert on ITM’s “true value,” told this group — with a straight face — that the share wasn’t worth more than 25p… while personally holding 67,000 shares at over 60p. Hahaha.

Always entertaining when spicytuna, the same guy who told everyone ITM wasn’t worth more than 25p while holding 67,000 shares at over 60p, starts lecturing the group about who's deluded and who's not. The irony writes itself.

Now we’re getting full-on “I alone understand the market, the tech, global policy, and everyone else is throwing conspiracy theories” energy — all from someone who’s spent months shifting goalposts, rewriting his own history, and pretending his passive-aggressive derailment is deep insight.

It’s almost impressive how confidently he talks down to people while proving, sentence by sentence, that he still doesn’t grasp how execution cycles, order timing, or even the FID process work in this sector. But sure — everyone else is clueless, and he’s just here to help.

Let him enjoy his wall. Most of us already figured out he hit it a while ago.

In other words, the guy’s a lying creep — so the idea he’s running multiple accounts isn’t far-fetched at all.

What a strange post spicy..

Just a quick one for anyone new here: spicytuna told the group he held 67,000 shares — while also arguing ITM isn’t worth more than 25p, essentially just the £200m in cash.

So, by his logic, he invested £67k into something he believes has no value beyond what’s already in the bank — no value in the Shell project, the tech, the IP, or the strategic position in a scaling sector.

It's actually incredible when you think about it.

One early giveaway — you're actually getting likes on your posts. Spicy never did. Can’t help but wonder who’s pressing that little thumbs-up now… anyway. I smell fish.

Let’s just see if your “I’m pro hydrogen, but...” routine holds up over the next few weeks. I’ve seen this pattern before — multiple times — always starts the same: a few positive nods, some friendly questions, then slowly morphs into long-winded essays on why hydrogen’s unworkable and ITM’s worth less than its cash balance.

If you check spicytuna’s history, it’s textbook. Shifts tone gradually, acts like he’s just being balanced, then spends hours trying to convince people the entire sector is a write-off. Snake in the grass..

Glad to see you recognise h2 will play a major role — that’s something we can agree on. But it’s odd to accept hydrogen’s importance in producing SAF, ammonia, methanol, etc., and then dismiss its direct use in transport. If we already need to generate, store, and manage vast quantities of green hydrogen, using it directly in sectors like heavy transport, aviation, and shipping — where batteries fall short — is often far more efficient than converting it into synthetic fuels just to fit legacy systems. Building new infrastructure sounds daunting, but so did electrifying cars 15 years ago. Scaling hydrogen for transport isn’t just viable — it’s logical. I can tell this isn’t your area professionally, though it’s close to mine. Let’s just agree it’s good we’re both willing to discuss it, no matter how far off the mark you are.

The “I’m on your side” to Laurie line gave me a good laugh.

Yes, the hydrogen ecosystem isn’t fully built out — no argument there. But if your solution is “just make SAF in the outback and plug it into the fossil fuel system,” you’re kind of proving my point: that infrastructure exists because we spent a century building it. Of course hydrogen needs investment — so did oil, gas, and even electricity grids.

Also, producing SAF still requires hydrogen — and a lot of it. If you're making e-fuels using DAC and green hydrogen, you’re dealing with huge energy losses (efficiencies as low as 10–15%). So if the answer is “just use SAF,” you're not avoiding hydrogen — you’re just burying it further up the chain, and losing a big chunk of energy along the way.

Your point about making hydrogen on-site is totally valid — and already being explored in many sectors. But that doesn’t replace the need for scalable infrastructure across mobility, shipping, aviation, and heavy industry. If we’re serious about decarbonisation, we need to be investing in both distributed and centralised solutions, not picking one and writing off the rest.

So yes, we agree: the world will need a lot of green hydrogen. Where we differ is that I don’t think we need to funnel all of it through inefficient workarounds (like SAF and e-fuels) just because pipelines and storage tanks haven’t caught up yet.

If you’re on our side — great. But maybe ease off the “hydrogen’s too hard, let’s just work around it” line. That’s not backing the sector — that’s rebranding doubt.

Fahrenheit.

“reality bites”? That line pretty much gave the game away.

You start off pretending to engage fairly, then drop the usual spicy-style twist: take one adjusted timeline (which, by the way, is standard in aerospace development), spin it as a failure, and suddenly pivot to your real agenda — pushing SAF while pretending you’re still pro-hydrogen “in theory.”

It’s such a transparent move it’s almost funny. If you were trying to hide the fact you’re still spicytuna, you did a shockingly bad job of it. Same structure, same tone shift, same weak attempt to look neutral before sliding in the negativity.

Also worth pointing out: if SAF is produced via DAC and green hydrogen — that’s great news for ITM, not your gotcha moment. You’re literally describing a pathway that relies on mass electrolyser deployment — the exact thing ITM is positioned for.

So thanks for the reveal. It was subtle… until it wasn’t.

Https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-03-airbus-showcases-hydrogen-aircraft-technologies-during-its-2025?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Also had to laugh a bit at the “three times bigger tanks” point — like Airbus engineers haven’t noticed. It’s always funny when someone drops technical facts but somehow misses what the actual aerospace companies are designing around. They’re not strapping hydrogen tanks onto a 1980s airframe and calling it innovation — they’re rethinking the whole architecture. There’s a reason Airbus is putting serious money into this...