Member Info for JeffMills

We’ve secured a 200MW contract with RWE and a 100MW contract with Shell, both in Germany.

It’s definitely worth considering the possibility of outside influence, like from oil lobbyists or competitors. The green hydrogen boom two years ago likely posed a real threat to traditional energy players, and it wouldn’t be surprising if some of the shorts were strategically placed by those who stand to lose from a transition to greener energy. Oil companies, for instance, might not be thrilled by the rise of hydrogen, especially if they’re not involved in the tech.

The recent broker announcements from ITM and the potential 500MW FID could also be indicative of larger players, like BP, making moves. Imagine this: BP buys a 20% stake in ITM and negotiates a 50/50 split on sales—similar to how Linde has structured deals. If that’s the case, it could be a way for big companies to buy in at a fraction of the current value, especially if the stock is being held down by shorts. While this is speculative, it’s certainly possible that some of these moves are being driven by larger players looking to control the future of green hydrogen and benefit from the sector’s growth while keeping a lid on valuations in the short term.

In the green energy sector, shorts often bet on delayed growth or skepticism, but they can get burned if the market sentiment shifts quickly, as seen with stocks like Tesla. Shorts lost big during Tesla’s rise, especially when the market finally embraced its long-term potential. In the case of green tech, shorts might be betting on timing, but if the sector picks up momentum, they could face similar risks of being squeezed out as the long-term story unfolds.

They likely know the stock will rise eventually, but they’re keeping their shorts open because they expect the market to remain cautious until revenue growth is clearly demonstrated. After the last green hydrogen boom, many investors are still waiting for more concrete financials before fully buying into the hype again. The ITM results didn’t move the stock, showing they’re betting on timing—waiting for actual earnings to confirm the potential. It’s also possible they hold long positions elsewhere, using the shorts as a hedge. Ultimately, they’re positioning for the eventual upside, but confident the market will remain skeptical until growth is proven.

Short sellers could keep their short positions open while also buying long positions, effectively hedging their bets. This strategy lets them benefit if the price falls (via the short) but offsets some risk if the price rises (via the long position). It’s a way to manage uncertainty while staying in the game.

Plug Power secured a $70 million loan from the New York Green Bank to help fund its hydrogen infrastructure projects in 2017! This was part of their strategy to scale up their hydrogen production capacity, and they didn’t need to hit any specific MW target to qualify — it was about the company’s growth plan, and the backing from partners and investors.

They also raised capital through other means including equity raises and government-backed loans, to fund their expansion in the hydrogen sector. The key takeaway is that loans are based on long-term growth potential and contracts, not just hitting a specific MW run rate. ITM, with its current contracts and growth trajectory, is in a similar position to raise capital as needed.

Loans aren’t just about hitting an annual MW target — it’s about predictable cash flow and strong contracts. Those contracts show they’re on the right path, and that’s exactly what banks look for.

And don’t forget, ITM isn’t limited to just loans. If they needed more cash, they could always raise funds through equity or partnerships — just like they did with their previous funding rounds. With the contracts they’re securing and the growing demand for green hydrogen, there’s no shortage of interest from investors. Plug Power did it, and ITM can too.

So no, they don’t need to hit 250MW right now to qualify for loans. They’ve got the contracts and the future growth in place. If needed, they can raise more capital through other means to keep things moving.

Toneman— you point out that ITM needs 250MW per year by 2027 for survival (I presume you don’t understand what a loan is but ok), but I think we’re already on track to hit that target — and maybe more. With the 500MW contract pending fid (to be completed by 2028), plus the Shell project scheduled to be completed 2027, ITM is poised to meet and even exceed that 250MW target… This is a strong foundation, and I expect more to come as these large-scale projects ramp up.

Looking at the bigger picture, there’s a lot of momentum in the green hydrogen sector right now. The German hydrogen pipeline is a huge deal, and the US just handed out $2 billion in funding today — both showing that governments are serious about backing this transition with or without trump. These kinds of investments signal the market is accelerating, and it’s not just a distant 10-year horizon anymore.

The competition may be growing, but that’s a sign of the sector maturing, not slowing down. ITM’s tech, partnerships, and growing pipeline put it in a strong position to capture a good share of the market as demand for green hydrogen continues to rise. The pieces are falling into place faster than we might have expected, and I’m optimistic about what’s to come.

Mike Ashley’s approach to Newcastle United, while criticised for lacking ambition on the football side, was effective in keeping the club financially stable and self-sustaining. If he applies the same business-minded approach to Boohoo, it could be positive for shareholders. Ashley’s focus on profitability and operational efficiency could help ensure that Boohoo remains financially strong, while avoiding risky, short-term strategies that could harm the business in the long run. Just like at Newcastle, his emphasis on keeping costs in check and ensuring a solid foundation could benefit Boohoo’s shareholders by protecting the company’s value, ensuring growth, and avoiding reckless decisions. This kind of steady, no-nonsense approach could provide the stability and oversight that Boohoo needs, especially in a fast-evolving retail market.

Kamani moving to Executive Vice Chair just seems like a way for him to keep control while pretending there’s independent governance with Tim Morris as Chair. He’s still running the day-to-day, especially with the young fashion businesses, so it looks like he’s keeping all the power while trying to make it seem like the board’s independent. It feels like a way to maintain his influence without fully letting go, which could make shareholders question whether there’s really any transparency or true oversight.

Mike Ashley probably didn’t disclose his exact plans in the letter because, well, why give away all your cards before you’re even in the game? If he were to reveal his strategy now, he’d just be handing Boohoo’s board an opportunity to block him or copy his ideas. Better to hold back and keep them guessing. After all, if he’s going to take over, he might want to leave the real “magic” for when he’s actually in the CEO chair, not just writing letters. Why give them a blueprint to fix it before he’s in control?

Mike Ashley likely prefers to become CEO rather than pursue a full takeover of Boohoo because of the potential chaos a takeover could cause. If he were to take over the company outright, it would create significant disruption—both operationally and with shareholders. A hostile takeover could lead to a lot of uncertainty, alienate key stakeholders, and potentially damage Boohoo’s brand and market position. In addition, it would involve a complex and costly process that might not be the most efficient way to leverage his existing 27% stake.

By stepping into the CEO role, Ashley can take control of Boohoo’s direction without the risks and upheaval associated with a full takeover. With nearly a third of the company already in his hands, he has significant influence over decisions, and as CEO, he can implement the changes he sees fit. It gives him the ability to improve the company’s performance, demonstrate his leadership, and restore shareholder confidence—without the added complexity and chaos that would come with attempting a full buyout.

This approach allows Ashley to avoid legal battles and preserve the stability of the business while still having substantial control over its future. It’s a more measured, strategic path to influence Boohoo’s future, especially given his sizable ownership.

I’m certain the 500mw did will be successful—however, If the project is canceled after a reservation but before the deposit is made, there could still be a reservation fee or penalty outlined in the contract. Typically, this fee would cover any costs incurred up to that point, and it might be a smaller percentage of the total project cost. Depending on the contract, it could range from a few percent of the total value to a flat fee. For a £500 million project, this could mean a cancellation fee of around £5 million to £25 million. It really depends on the terms agreed upon.

Yup, Dennis mentioned in the ITM podcast after their trading update that once projects reach this stage, it’s highly unlikely they’ll be pulled + a fee like you say.

You’re right, but we can’t supply the world with electrolysers all at once—this industry needs massive scale. With partners like RWE and Shell, and a strong position in markets like Germany, we are very well positioned.

Actually, this is great for ITM. As forecasted by Dennis, the industry is now moving forward with FIDs, and this 50MW contract is a clear sign that large-scale green hydrogen projects are gaining momentum. It’s a positive indicator for all players in the space, including ITM.

Investment fund Hydrogen One, via their RNS this morning.

Another contract today, industry beginning to accelerate, finally.

Jesus, this Ricky guy is obsessed with me. I’m done replying to him.

The company’s 100 MW electrolyser plants will be deployable in the EU by 2026, supporting Uniper’s ambitions to lead Europe’s energy transition.