Member Info for JeffMills

I’m forgetting to state the obvious here – you need electrolyzers first to actually produce the hydrogen. Cracking is a process that breaks down hydrocarbons, but without electrolyzers creating clean hydrogen from water, there’s nothing to crack in the first place. So, it all starts with hydrogen production before you can even think about cracking. So very, very stupid question ade. Sorry.

The real question is whether AFC Energy is too far behind companies like Bloom Energy. ITM’s PEM electrolyzers are more efficient and scalable for large-scale hydrogen production, especially with renewable energy. AFC’s alkaline fuel cells are promising but still less efficient and not as advanced to its peers, whereas ITM is ahead its counterparts. Hopefully this helps ade.

I chose not to indulge Ricky’s comment about me "conveniently ignoring" the shorts. Yes, shorts have been reducing over the past two weeks, and a broker upgraded the stock from hold to buy. But as I mentioned, the shorts are betting against the broader market, not the sector. The market is looking for tangible revenue on the books and is being cautious, not allowing a rapid boom this time around.

It feels like you’re acting deliberately dense just so I have to explain things to you. If you’re unsure, you could always ask Ricky—I’d be happy to help, but it’s clear you’re missing the point….

The industry already praised ITM for sharing the exact price of Neptune V—where have you been? If you think companies just release exact revenue numbers all the time, you clearly don’t get how business works. Emerging companies like ITM have to manage financial details carefully to protect their market position. For example, if they revealed too much too soon, competitors could swoop in with better offers or undercut them. It’s all about timing and strategy, not secrecy.

Aqua and Ricky. Honestly, it’s almost like you two are just one person switching between accounts to agree with yourself. Maybe that’s why you’re so convinced the rest of us are delusional—projection, much?

You both pop up here with the same doom-and-gloom takes, like some tag team of negativity, convinced that everyone else is wrong while you’re the only ones seeing the "truth." If this stock is so hopeless, why waste your precious time ranting on a board full of supposed “rampers”? Feels like you’re just here for the drama.

Look, if you’re that certain we’re all fools and ITM’s doomed, by all means, take your wisdom elsewhere. But hey, if you two ever decide to merge into one account, at least the rest of us won’t have to read double the complaints. Cheers!

You’re admitting your mistake and predicting doom for the stock while also taking shots at anyone who still sees potential in ITM. Fair enough, but the irony is pretty rich—claiming everyone here is delusional while you’re the one still hanging around the board you supposedly can’t stand.

calling out “misleading guff” and labeling anyone optimistic as a “rampant bull” or accusing them of being delusional is a bit much, don’t you think? People are here to discuss the stock, both positives and negatives. If that drives you nuts, well...maybe it’s time to take your own advice and step away for a bit.

Not every critical comment is part of some conspiracy, but not every optimistic one is BS either.

Jesus aqua, relax. We all know the market’s been brutal for clean energy stocks—ITM included. But calling everyone "rampers" because they haven’t thrown in the towel like you seems like a reach. Some of us are actually looking at the long-term potential, not just panicking over every dip.

Let’s get real for a moment ricky—you're asking for contract revenue details as if ITM owes you a personal breakdown. The fact is, ITM's strategy isn’t about spoon-feeding every bit of revenue detail in the RNS. It's about scaling up and securing massive future potential, which takes time.

Also, if you think ITM's outlook is just "hopes and dreams," you're missing the bigger picture. The projects with Shell, RWE, and Neptune Vs are laying the groundwork for something much bigger. Not everything is about immediate gains, and savvy investors know this. The market’s focused on long-term scaling, not just a few signed-off numbers to keep everyone happy.

And while we’re at it, funny how you’re calling out "childlike personal attacks" when your whole rant is a thinly-veiled dig at me and everyone who doesn’t share your doom-and-gloom perspective.

Short interest in Tesla was very high compared to here, especially when profitability seemed uncertain. At one point, short interest on Tesla reached over 20% of its total shares outstanding​. also more recently shorters made a loss of $12.2 billion in 2023...

Once those big projects are signed, delivered, and reflected in the revenue numbers, that's when the valuation could explode. Shorters are probably waiting for that moment when the concrete numbers start coming in—so they're playing the market until then

Dibs, I think the shorts aren’t really betting against ITM's long-term potential, they're more playing the market dynamics right now. With ITM’s value largely tied to future revenues—like 100mw shell—the market is being cautious and holding the stock back from skyrocketing. So, it’s less about doubting ITM’s future, and more about shorters exploiting the lack of concrete, realised revenue on the books at the moment. Once we start seeing those big contracts translate into tangible, recurring revenue, they'll be out. The market’s holding off on a massive breakout until that’s clearer.

The trade you're talking about at 16:35 is likely an uncrossed trade, which is a type of auction trade that happens at the end of the trading day. It's where buyers and sellers are matched at a single price, rather than being executed as normal buy or sell orders. This is not short selling or anything negative—it’s just a way to balance trades at the closing price.

So, ITM gets the benefit of this matched trading without the price being driven by individual buy/sell orders throughout the day. It's a regular market process, nothing to worry about!

"The government has set a target to award contracts for the second hydrogen allocation round (HAR2) in early 2025, with a focus on awarding up to 875MW of electrolytic hydrogen capacity. This is part of the broader plan to reach 1GW of hydrogen production by 2025"

Lately, we've seen a few new accounts pop up with the same tired narrative. Just like that “long-term investor” Ricky who claimed a competitor was winning with an RWE project over us, only to find out ITM is already contracted for 200 MW there. If you’re gonna spread sh*t, at least get your facts straight.

Mate, if you've been lurking on these boards thinking you're above it all, that’s on you. Plenty of us here, myself included, are just calling it like it is, not spreading “vitriol.”

Ah, come on—if you weren’t being negative, it sure sounded like it. But let’s be real: saying ITM is “suffering the most” is a stretch. With Germany’s big hydrogen push and the UK’s 10 GW target, ITM’s got massive opportunities ahead. Frustrations are fair, but let’s not ignore the upside here. No need to take it so personally—just calling it how I see it.

500mw fid + 100mw shell

With a 500 million contract, a 20% margin, and 600 MW of green hydrogen with shell, ITM’s share price could easily could reach rocket. You’re talking about £33.4 million in profit a year and a massive growth story. This kind of deal would seriously put ITM on the map, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see a 50%-100% jump in the sp on the day. It’s a game changer, no doubt.

Oh, so you’re going to create an account just to end your comment with a negative take on ITM Power? Seriously, get a grip. It’s one thing to have an opinion, but spreading negativity without understanding the full picture doesn’t do anyone any favors. Maybe focus on the facts instead of trying to tear things down.