Member Info for JeffMills

Ah, the classic 'green hydrogen is too expensive' take. I cant see his post but i can see the heading from a reply. ITM isn’t a hydrogen producer; it’s the tech enabler, and yes, hydrogen is costly—that’s why governments subsidise it. They're not in it for the quick buck but to avoid catastrophic climate costs down the line. This guy seems desperate? Whats going on in his head.

The inclusion of existing nuclear-powered hydrogen, removes a major hurdle that has likely delayed final investment decisions (FIDs) across the sector. Uncertainty around these subsidies has been a key barrier, but this clarity could mark another critical turning point for clean hydrogen’s growth. 2025 is shaping up to be a defining year for ITM and its shareholders as these policies take effect and investments accelerate. gla

Https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/us-issue-hydrogen-credit-rule-this-week-with-path-nuclear-sources-say-2024-12-31/

In its draft guidance, the agency said the credit would range from 60 cents to $3 per kilogram and be based on the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from the power-generating source used in hydrogen production.|

In its draft guidance, the agency said the credit would range from 60 cents to $3 per kilogram and be based on the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from the power-generating source used in hydrogen production. The level of any inclusion of nuclear power in the final rules will determine whether it's commercially viable to invest in hydrogen production.

Some possible guidelines could include a limit on the number of credit-qualifying megawatts allowed from existing nuclear power plants used in hydrogen production, one source said.

I've noted the board and kept the creep on filter. He might have mental health issues, so please be kind.

Most hydrogen stocks in the US are up over 10% + today, with the Treasury set to release guidance on hydrogen tax credits under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The rules, expected this week, will outline how producers like Plug Power can offset costs when using nuclear power for hydrogen production.

Exactly—the very thing, nuclear, that someone in here thought was bad news for the sector. We all know who I’m talking about. 😂

I’ve been saying—if these rules come out this week, which is looking likely, I’m expecting a jump above 40.

I actually feel lucky to have had the chance to buy ITM below 50p. With the current market cap at around £220 million at 35p per share, what would it take to justify a £1 valuation?

Assuming a higher Price-to-Sales (P/S) ratio of 20, which is typical for high-growth companies, ITM would need an annual turnover of approximately £31.5 million. This is based on a market cap of £630 million at £1 per share. Let that sink in.

It’s fascinating how much time some people spend documenting what everyone already knows—ITM’s challenges are hardly unique; it’s been a rough ride across most of AIM and hydrogen. The real focus should be on the opportunities ahead, not a recap no one asked for.

After a bubble bursts, seeing countries like Germany inject billions into that so-called "bumble sector" should really make you stop and think, shouldn’t it?

Happy New Year, everyone!

As a reminder of how far we've come in the last couple of months.

This time last year, we had no deals with Shell. Now, we're building the largest PEM electrolyzer on the planet for them.

The Neptune V didn’t even exist a year ago. Today, we’ve secured £13 million in contracts in just weeks, with pricing discussions underway for another £43 million.

These are just a couple of highlights from the last few months.

On the topic of share price (SP): the recent drop has been influenced by several factors, primarily delays in Final Investment Decisions (FIDs). However, we’re seeing signs of positive momentum:

BP recently announced their FID for a 100 MW project.

Inflation is easing.

The German government is committing billions in funding, signaling a shift in market conditions.

UK going ahead with har1 payments, moving onto har2

If FIDs were finalised more quickly—or if global events in regions like the Middle East or Ukraine had unfolded differently—things might look very different today. As for those who’ve sold out, like Ricky or JZ, they made their decisions based on their circumstances. But remember, anyone is welcome to buy back in.

This isn’t a cult. It’s a group of strangers who share an interest in a stock they’re invested in. Let’s focus on the facts, celebrate the progress, and keep it civil.

To be honest, what really excites me is the potential revenue growth between 2025 and 2026. It's possible we won't see the 15 MW contract reflected in the balance sheet until 2026, which adds around £13m. On top of that, we have the 100 MW contract with Shell, the 50 MW FEED project, which, if it goes to FID, could be completed within the next two years, and the circa £15m already moved to 2026 as mentioned in the last update.

I’ll leave the maths to someone else, but when you’re looking at a potential revenue increase of 300%, it’s hard to see how the stock can stay down. This isn’t like what AFC did, where they sold a small amount and everyone got excited. We’re talking about a jump from £22m to around £80m+ in a single year. genuinely excited about what’s coming.

Jacob I agree. especially once they see the next results. However, the update can only reflect what we've already been told (in terms of contracts/revenue) but I believe any upgrades will depend on when revenue is recognised. If it’s based on contract signing, we’re looking at around £13m in potential revenue from the 4.3 million NEPTUNE V units (4.3 x 3), which could lead to an upgrade. As I’ve mentioned before, I think there’s a strong possibility of more NEPTUNE V sales before the next update—though, of course, that's just my opinion.

On top of that, the FEED contract for the 50 MW green hydrogen site is a positive development, and with the UK government now releasing funds for the HAR 1 projects, there’s additional upside here. But again, it's all about timing and how the revenue flows in.

Still waiting for the 20s... not gonna happen. I’m expecting another Neptune V contract in the coming weeks and some solid upgrades in the January update. Steady climb to £1, then beyond. Happy New Year!

Totally agree onsolidground. At €5M a unit, and based on typical industry gross margins of 20-40%, ITM is likely making around 25% (€1.25M per unit) at this stage. With economies of scale from the Gigafactory, they could push this to 30-35% (€1.5-1.75M per unit). Net margins are probably slim right now, but long-term, industry standards suggest 10-15% net (€500-750k per unit). These are just estimates based on standard industry figures, but they’ve already shared enough to give a good idea...

He's probably going to say it’s not a fan club, and sure, it’s not. But if your only contribution is to repeat the same negative points ten times a day, it starts to feel less like an open discussion and more like you're just trying to derail it. This space is for investors to talk about strategies and weigh risks, not for nonstop doom and gloom. Most of the 'rampers', for example, at least focus on the RNS updates—they’re not just regurgitating the same old bad news behind paywalls. If you're genuinely trying to offer value, a more balanced perspective would be far more helpful than just parroting criticisms. Otherwise, it’s just noise—and at this point, it’s hard to tell if you’re truly engaging or just seeking attention.

Probably out here telling everyone how to invest, even though he hasn’t put a single penny in himself—absolute weirdo behaviour, honestly. Even if he thinks he’s right, it’s still not normal to go out of your way to engage with investors, especially when it’s just creating hostility. Like, what’s the endgame here? It’s great though, because it’s like filtering him out – you can just roast him, and he’ll end up replying to himself like a maniac. Pure comedy

i'm guessing ricky/jz has posted some sob story by now. did it go like this:

ricky/jz: "don’t listen to jeff or anyone whos bought shares here, listen to me! look at my track record—i know everything! i’m here to save your money, not make any for myself. i don’t invest; i just sit around all day digging up negative news to make sure you don’t lose a penny. who cares about making money when i’ve got none to my name? and seriously, i’m not here for the cash—i’m just here to make sure everyone likes me. yeah, that’s right, i’m the guy who craves validation from strangers online. i smell like ****, but at least i’m honest about it! you can count on me to do absolutely nothing, but hey, everyone loves a hero, right?"

So, Ricky/JZ, I can’t see your posts, but here’s the thing—you might know how to watch a share price chart daily and think you’ve got a handle on this industry, but it’s clear you don’t actually work in it, unlike me. If you’re bearish, fair enough, but let’s drop the childish arguments that don’t hold up. Cheers.

More nuclear means more consistent, clean energy, which is exactly what green hydrogen needs to scale up. It’s not a threat—it’s a boost. Nuclear can power electrolysis during off-peak times, reducing waste and lowering costs. This push isn’t competition; it’s a huge positive for green hydrogen and ITM’s long-term potential.

Even with heavy nuclear use for AI, we still need green hydrogen. It’s a versatile clean energy carrier that nuclear alone can’t replace—essential for decarbonising sectors like heavy industry, aviation, and shipping where direct electrification isn’t practical. Plus, green hydrogen stores excess energy from nuclear and renewables, making it critical for balancing the grid and ensuring energy security in a net-zero future.

Why are they even trying to make nuclear and green hydrogen a competition? I'm guessing it was either JZ/Ricky? They’re not rivals—they’re complementary. Nuclear gives us constant, reliable energy, which is exactly what green hydrogen production needs since electrolysis thrives on a steady power supply. Plus, when nuclear plants produce more energy than the grid needs (and yeah, that happens—like in the UK, some reports say up to 65% of potential nuclear output can go unused at low-demand times), that "wasted" energy could be used for making hydrogen instead of just going nowhere.

So why fight over which is “better”? It’s teamwork, not a rivalry. Acting like it’s one or the other is just showing they don’t understand how modern energy systems work.

If it’s such a bad move, why isn’t anyone else shorting above 0.50, Rick? I won't see your reply but please stop spamming.