Member Info for swazers

@Patxaran Facts are a real problem for trolls. True fundamentals are kryptonite to those whose job it is to spread FUD.

good post, @castlepaul13 — and worth expanding with a few key fundamentals for clarity:

✅ inentec’s pem system is indeed energy-intensive.

published studies show a typical 2000–3000 kwh per ton of waste processed, far higher than conventional gasification or pyrolysis. this is why hui’s deal is focused on mena, where subsidised power allows this model to work in that context only.

✅ capex is high and complex.

industry history shows plasma systems routinely requiring $100m–$200m+ total project capex when you include: plasma torches + power supply

high-grade refractory linings.gas cleaning (acid gas removal, dioxins, particulates), feedstock pre-processing. the "simple system" claim is marketing spin — this is one of the most complex wte architectures to operate and maintain.

✅ limited waste stream applicability.

plasma is best for hazardous or specialist waste, where the cost can be justified. not suitable for distributed hydrogen production from municipal waste or plastics, which is where dmg shines.

✅ emissions and classification.

even when **** is vitrified, plasma systems generate acid gases (hf, hcl, sox), requiring treatment of co2 emissions. many regulators still treat plasma gasification as a form of thermal treatment with incineration-like regulatory hurdles, especially in europe.

✅ operational complexity is real.

plasma torches degrade and require specialist replacement. refractory wear is a known challenge. gas clean-up must be highly sophisticated to meet emissions targets. very few pem plants globally operate reliably at scale —the track record is poor.

✅ dmg’s clear advantages.

lower parasitic load post-startup — energy self-sustaining once the syngas loop is established.designed for modular distributed deployment, not giant, capex-heavy projects.key patents granted in the us and eu — protecting unique process and architecture.feedstock flexibility proven at bridgend ftu — ideal for unrecyclable plastics + high-calorific waste streams.outputs clean syngas → h2, power, heat (hot water can indeed be co-generated).

✅ the hw quote — out of date and irrelevant.

the "grey h2" comment is from years ago when the h2 markets were immature. now, green/low-carbon hydrogen markets are being driven by regulatory frameworks (eu red ii, uk mandates, aus markets) and premium offtake agreements are specifically positioned to produce low-carbon hydrogen aligned with these mandates, not generic grey h2. attempting to weaponise that old comment ignores market evolution — it’s a non-argument.

phe’s dmg system is protected by strong ip, optimised for modern distributed hydrogen markets, and already validated through key testing.

👉 phe’s commercial pathway is modular, scalable, and matches exactly where uk/eu/aus hydrogen policies are heading.

👉 plasma is not a threat . hope this helps, regards, swazers.

Final Conclusion — Why HUI’s MENA Deal Does Not Threaten PHE’s Strategy.

In summary, the recent HUI/InEnTec MENA announcement — while interesting — is of no strategic threat or consequence to Powerhouse Energy’s position, for the following fundamental reasons:

✅ Technology Position: DMG is not a generic plasma system; it is a proprietary architecture protected by an expanding patent family (now granted in the US and EU). In contrast, the InEnTec tech is a long-established plasma melter with existing European commercial rights licensed to Plagazi, meaning HUI is pursuing a narrow license-based model, not an original tech path.

✅ Market Segmentation: HUI’s MENA targets (cement, steel sectors) require bespoke large-scale facilities with heavy CAPEX, slow timelines, and complex funding hurdles — not directly comparable to DMG’s flexible, modular, distributed hydrogen and waste-to-energy solutions, which remain highly relevant to UK, European, Australian and global markets where distributed clean hydrogen is a strategic priority.

✅ Commercial Path: PHE has already demonstrated meaningful traction: FTU operational at Bridgend and progressing with valuable data. Engsolve is now a profitable business and an enabler for rapid scale engineering. Recent US and European patents confirm international intent. Early National H2 feed deals show the first commercial pathways emerging. In contrast, HUI’s deal — while hyped — is at Heads of Terms stage, with no capital secured, no operational plants, and facing complex challenges in a region where even licensed tech must still be funded and delivered.

✅ Global Reach: PHE’s DMG model is designed from the outset for international licensing — not just UK/EU but also Australia (National H2 relationship), North America (US patents), and other key markets where distributed hydrogen models align with policy and market needs. HUI is locked out of European InEnTec rights, and its path in other regions is unproven.

✅ Strategic Autonomy: Critically, PHE owns its IP and can control its commercial pathway — unlike HUI, which is dependent on external licensing. This allows PHE and its partners to scale with confidence.

Conclusion:

HUI’s latest announcement changes nothing in relation to PHE’s core positioning or opportunity. PHE continues to progress a superior, defensible technology model — now backed by international patents — with clear commercial traction emerging and a global market ahead. While the trolls seek to confuse the picture, the facts remain firmly on PHE’s side. Patience and clarity will be rewarded.

There’s been some discussion on this board about HUI’s recently announced Heads of Terms with InEnTec. For clarity — and to avoid misunderstandings — here are the key facts:

Market Focus and Territories.

HUI’s license with InEnTec is explicitly for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Powerhouse Energy (PHE), through its DMG technology and partnerships (including National H2), is focused on a far broader global market, the UK and EU markets, where circular hydrogen and distributed solutions are a core policy focus. Australia — where PHE’s partners are progressing meaningful opportunities. Other international territories are also being pursued — this is a global IP play, not a restricted regional one.

Different Technologies, Different Markets.

InEnTec’s Plasma Enhanced Melter (PEM) is a well-established plasma-based gasification system, suited to large-scale projects with specific waste streams. PHE’s DMG platform is a modular, scalable hydrogen production system designed to convert unrecyclable plastics and other feedstocks into high-quality hydrogen and electricity, with strong economics at small to medium scale. The DMG architecture enables distributed deployment in urban, industrial, and port environments — a different niche from large-scale plasma systems.

IP Positioning and Control.

PHE fully controls its own core IP. InEnTec’s European commercialisation rights are held by Plagazi, not HUI, meaning there is no European overlap.

PHE is pursuing its technology in multiple markets through licensing and partnerships, without geographic restrictions of the kind seen in the HUI/InEnTec deal.

The Strategic Picture.

HUI’s announcement reflects their ongoing development strategy in MENA, where InEnTec’s proven plasma systems may suit particular large-scale industrial applications. This is not in competition with PHE’s DMG model, which is optimised for flexible, modular hydrogen deployment across a broader set of markets and use cases. The two approaches are complementary at a global level — they serve different market needs, technology classes, and deployment models.

On IP and International Positioning:

Powerhouse Energy controls a valuable and growing global patent portfolio around its DMG process, with key US and European patents already granted and further filings in progress. This is not a re-licensed external system — it is PHE’s own proprietary technology, with international applicability.

The recent US patent grant further strengthens PHE’s ability to pursue global licensing, including in key growth markets such as North America, Australia, and Asia, where DMG’s distributed hydrogen model is particularly well-suited. In contrast, HUI’s MENA announcement involves technology where European rights are already held elsewhere (Plagazi) and where HUI is pursuing a narrower license-based regional strategy, quite distinct from PHE’s broader, IP-driven approach.

Final Conclusion — Why HUI’s MENA Deal Does Not Threaten PHE’s Strategy.

In summary, the recent HUI/InEnTec MENA announcement — while interesting — is of no strategic threat or consequence to Powerhouse Energy’s position, for the following fundamental reasons:

✅ Technology Position: DMG is not a generic plasma system; it is a proprietary architecture protected by an expanding patent family (now granted in the US and EU). In contrast, the InEnTec tech is a long-established plasma melter with existing European commercial rights licensed to Plagazi, meaning HUI is pursuing a narrow license-based model, not an original tech path.

✅ Market Segmentation: HUI’s MENA targets (cement, steel sectors) require bespoke large-scale facilities with heavy CAPEX, slow timelines, and complex funding hurdles — not directly comparable to DMG’s flexible, modular, distributed hydrogen and waste-to-energy solutions, which remain highly relevant to UK, European, Australian and global markets where distributed clean hydrogen is a strategic priority.

✅ Commercial Path: PHE has already demonstrated meaningful traction: FTU operational at Bridgend and progressing with valuable data. Engsolve is now a profitable business and an enabler for rapid scale engineering. Recent US and European patents confirm international intent. Early National H2 feed deals show the first commercial pathways emerging. In contrast, HUI’s deal — while hyped — is at Heads of Terms stage, with no capital secured, no operational plants, and facing complex challenges in a region where even licensed tech must still be funded and delivered.

✅ Global Reach: PHE’s DMG model is designed from the outset for international licensing — not just UK/EU but also Australia (National H2 relationship), North America (US patents), and other key markets where distributed hydrogen models align with policy and market needs. HUI is locked out of European InEnTec rights, and its path in other regions is unproven.

✅ Strategic Autonomy: Critically, PHE owns its IP and can control its commercial pathway — unlike HUI, which is dependent on external licensing. This allows PHE and its partners to scale with confidence.

Conclusion:

HUI’s latest announcement changes nothing in relation to PHE’s core positioning or opportunity. PHE continues to progress a superior, defensible technology model — now backed by international patents — with clear commercial traction emerging and a global market ahead. While the trolls seek to confuse the picture, the facts remain firmly on PHE’s side. Patience and clarity will be rewarded.

There’s been some discussion on this board about HUI’s recently announced Heads of Terms with InEnTec. For clarity — and to avoid misunderstandings — here are the key facts:

Market Focus and Territories.

HUI’s license with InEnTec is explicitly for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Powerhouse Energy (PHE), through its DMG technology and partnerships (including National H2), is focused on a far broader global market, the UK and EU markets, where circular hydrogen and distributed solutions are a core policy focus. Australia — where PHE’s partners are progressing meaningful opportunities. Other international territories are also being pursued — this is a global IP play, not a restricted regional one.

Different Technologies, Different Markets.

InEnTec’s Plasma Enhanced Melter (PEM) is a well-established plasma-based gasification system, suited to large-scale projects with specific waste streams. PHE’s DMG platform is a modular, scalable hydrogen production system designed to convert unrecyclable plastics and other feedstocks into high-quality hydrogen and electricity, with strong economics at small to medium scale. The DMG architecture enables distributed deployment in urban, industrial, and port environments — a different niche from large-scale plasma systems.

IP Positioning and Control.

PHE fully controls its own core IP. InEnTec’s European commercialisation rights are held by Plagazi, not HUI, meaning there is no European overlap.

PHE is pursuing its technology in multiple markets through licensing and partnerships, without geographic restrictions of the kind seen in the HUI/InEnTec deal.

The Strategic Picture.

HUI’s announcement reflects their ongoing development strategy in MENA, where InEnTec’s proven plasma systems may suit particular large-scale industrial applications. This is not in competition with PHE’s DMG model, which is optimised for flexible, modular hydrogen deployment across a broader set of markets and use cases. The two approaches are complementary at a global level — they serve different market needs, technology classes, and deployment models.

On IP and International Positioning:

Powerhouse Energy controls a valuable and growing global patent portfolio around its DMG process, with key US and European patents already granted and further filings in progress. This is not a re-licensed external system — it is PHE’s own proprietary technology, with international applicability.

The recent US patent grant further strengthens PHE’s ability to pursue global licensing, including in key growth markets such as North America, Australia, and Asia, where DMG’s distributed hydrogen model is particularly well-suited. In contrast, HUI’s MENA announcement involves technology where European rights are already held elsewhere (Plagazi) and where HUI is pursuing a narrower license-based regional strategy, quite distinct from PHE’s broader, IP-driven approach.

You need arguments and talking points @moab , personal attacks only prove you have no arguments. I took apart some of your recent posts and dedicated an entire thread, it's just below this one. I noticed you havnt attempted to offer a rebuttal? That's right, you are not mentally equipped to do so. Please give up the trolling game and find something more worthwhile and in line with your subpar IQ. Run along, mate, there's a good lad.

@Testpack3 — yet again trying to spin a Heads of Terms announcement for a MENA-region-only license on a 13-year-old third-party technology as somehow relevant to PHE’s differentiated, IP-backed DMG platform is a desperate move.

👉 The HUI-InEnTec RNS is about MENA only — explicitly stated.👉 Plagazi already holds the exclusive European rights to this exact InEnTec technology — therefore, it is not a competitor to PHE in Europe, where PHE’s licensing strategy and partnerships are focused.👉 The InEnTec plasma technology is not the same as DMG — DMG is a modular platform designed for the distributed production of hydrogen from unrecyclable waste plastic, backed by proprietary engineering and a significantly different system architecture.

Now, your tactic here is transparent: You quote the RNS to imply “competition” — but the RNS makes clear this is MENA only and non-exclusive to Europe. You imply this is bad for PHE, while neglecting that PHE is pursuing partnerships globally through National H2 and others, with modular solutions designed for exactly the licensing model that InEnTec’s large-scale EPC-led model can’t address. Finally, you throw in personal snide remarks about me, which is your typical fallback when the facts don’t support your narrative.

The real takeaway is this: HUI are now aligning with older plasma tech to have something in the market, but this has zero bearing on PHE’s modular, IP-driven pathway, which remains uniquely positioned in the European, UK, and Australian markets. Investors should read the RNS carefully, not through the distorted lens of trolls like testpack3.

@Leeawill27, In your opinion you mean? At least put the minimum effort in when you're making statements on a public BB. It takes about an extra 2 seconds.

@Dustyslay, you are just another bad actor. That's it. I remember when your account came onto this BB. Bad actors all follow the same MO. The same script. How thick do you think we are? We know what the game is here. We understand the rules. So do you. Please. Waste your words on someone else. Or prove you are a genuine investor. We both know that's never gonna happen.

@Divvyup

— good to see a reflective post, but I feel it is important to add some critical context and correct a few misconceptions here, otherwise the board ends up accepting inaccurate narratives by default.

1️⃣ Plasma tech ≠ DMG

While it is true that some older generations of plasma technologies were inefficient and power-hungry, DMG is fundamentally different, and the Bridgend FTU testing is precisely addressing this. PHE’s design is targeted, modular, and focused on a much smaller scale, with efficiency and energy input ratios that are well known internally.

Comparing DMG to generic “plasma tech” from decades ago is misleading — that’s the exact tactic that certain parties (with vested interests elsewhere) have been trying to seed. Bridgend FTU has already demonstrated feedstock versatility, high conversion efficiencies, and very low parasitic loads compared to legacy systems.InEnTec tech is based on an entirely different architecture (PEM gasification), not directly equivalent, and indeed known to be highly power hungry, which is why it is attractive in MENA where grid power is cheap. DMG is designed to be viable in much more varied markets.

2️⃣ “100% proof at scale” narrative is a false test.

No pre-commercial licensing platform ever requires “100% scale guarantees” across every site — that’s a ridiculous standard and no startup could ever license under that burden. The correct commercial path is: progressive scaling, proven module validation (as with the FTU), then license and EPC scaling under partner collaboration, which is exactly the path UHL / NH2 are pursuing with PHE. HUI is not “waiting for DMG” — they have simply shifted to InEnTec’s proven PEM because their MENA model is subsidy / EPC-led, not IP and royalty-driven. That is not a sign of DMG “not working” — it is a strategic pivot driven by funding conditions. No link whatsoever to the scalability of DMG, which is being validated steadily.

3️⃣ “Low investor risk is key” — correct, but misunderstood.

PHE’s path is precisely about building a clean licensing business with strong OEM and EPC partners to de-risk deployment. HUI’s “fund and build” model using a licensed PEM tech is a completely different model, and one with far less IP capture and long-term value. Investors should be aware that DMG is the better structural model because it builds royalty streams and IP value, not simply one-off EPC projects. DMG is being progressed accordingly — yes, carefully, but that is proper engineering. “Scaling is not an issue” is indeed what we have been told.

Always ask — why so much effort to talk down DMG when PHE has simply been doing the right engineering work quietly and steadily? There’s a reason — certain parties fear the value of that IP platform.

Summary: DMG is on track, validated step by step. Bridgend FTU is already showing critical key performance metrics. No credible licensing platform lau

@Dustylay Wait a sec, you're telling the BB you timed the all-time low with HUI to the day to the minute and then enjoyed the intra-day pump? Wow, that was lucky timing. Amazing!! Talk about the right place and right time, only a genius could have timed that, either that or just plain luck? right? You guys are awesome, you are always winning against the markets. https://www.tradingview.com/x/owWhVrRv/

@The0ne Nice to see you, pal. I hope you are well. :)

@Moab, you have always been dense in the head. Your attack isn't well thought out, is it? The tweet you are trolling and abusing me over https://x.com/SwazersC/status/1844784854061187217 went on to make 32% gains in less than 5 weeks. Validating everything I predicted. It was a highly successful year and or so calling out #ECR, many times. If you are going to troll then do some research, you look a moron, a silly ranting idiotic moron. Who can't control his fragile emotions? https://www.tradingview.com/x/QIHCcVXQ/ I remember when you first came on the scene a few years back, and it was clear then how thick you were in the head. Do you even understand what I am writing? The example you have used was a winner, it makes you look so stupid. OMG, you can't make this up. I am surrounded by morons. You are not cut out to even be w troll, you are failing at this, seriously, moad, you're a bottom feeder.

@Eachtotheirown Is this how you fold (like cardboard) when someone beats your claims with actual facts? I'll take this as a win, then. Cheers.

@Eachtotheirown — yes — Plagazi do have an agreement to use InEnTec tech in Europe — but here’s the important reality:

There are currently very few active InEnTec deployments in Europe, because the tech is capex-heavy, energy-intensive and optimised for niche hazardous waste, not for broad circular economy or municipal WtH applications. PHE’s DMG system is a modular, scalable platform, targeting exactly the EU markets that Plagazi/InEnTec tech is not optimal for. DMG is designed around modern European waste directives, H2 markets and small-to-medium scale deployment, where InEnTec struggles.

The MENA deal from HUI is still a Heads of Terms — no funded projects yet — and entirely subject to conditions. The idea that InEnTec is a competitor in PHE’s core European market is simply wrong. They are targeting different segments, and PHE’s model is far more suitable for the EU Waste Framework Directive pathways and municipal tendering, where DMG is optimally placed.👉 PHE’s path is slower because it is about robust validation and regulatory alignment. Let’s keep these differences clear — apples and oranges.

@Dustyslay, your framing here is misleading.

👉 “You can see how long they’ve been around, and their technology in circulation.”

👉 “We have literally only just built it. Takes time.”

This is a false comparison and ignores key facts:

✅ InEnTec is an older technology, built to process hazardous waste using Plasma Enhanced Melter (PEM).

✅ It is not a modular commercial WtE (waste-to-energy) system designed for distributed deployment or rapid industrial decarbonisation in Europe.

✅ The InEnTec tech is niche, capex-heavy, and so far has very limited real-world WtH (waste-to-hydrogen) deployment — hence why they are licensing it out via desperate third-party deals (HUI’s current PR stunt).

PHE’s DMG process is a fundamentally different platform:

✅ It is modular, scalable, and licensable — built specifically for modern circular economy applications.

✅ It produces ultra-clean syngas and H2 ready, with high efficiency and very low emissions.

✅ PHE’s current Bridgend Feed Testing Unit (FTU) is a pre-commercial validation step — this is a normal and expected stage in scaling a highly engineered chemical process.

✅ PHE is now progressing toward industrial partnerships via NH2 and others — the game is about the commercial model, not “who’s been around longer”.

The “time” argument is meaningless when you’re comparing old niche tech vs new market-ready platforms.

📌 Bottom line:

👉 The DMG process was built on rigorous R&D, with significant validation now occurring.

👉 It is aimed at a totally different market segment and deployment model to InEnTec.

👉 The InEnTec system is not “ahead” — it is being propped up through licensing optics.

👉 PHE is following a sound commercialisation pathway — not hype.

@jancux01 Let's deconstruct your FUD (again)

Another typical FUD post from jancux01 — let’s walk through it carefully so others don’t get misled.

🟢 1️⃣ On the claim: “One demo unit doesn’t mean it scales”

→ Bridgend is a Feed Testing Unit (FTU) — its purpose is to validate feedstock parameters and system performance. This is normal in a modular licensing model — you validate first, then license out at scale.→ PHE’s business model has always been modular licensing, not building large plants themselves. So this post deliberately misrepresents the model.

🟢 2️⃣ On the UHL IPO comparison

→ No one is saying “PHE is worth £500m because UHL IPO’d at $80m”.→ The point is that markets place value on IP-driven hydrogen platforms with strong licensing models, even before full-scale-out.→ UHL’s IPO supports this precedent — it is not a direct valuation claim.

🟢 3️⃣ On “Where is the cash?”

→ There is already cash:• Engsolve is profitable — YTD record profits reported.• Feed Testing is revenue-generating — NH2 contract already signed and operational. £350k already paid by NH2

→ The licensing pipeline takes time, but revenues are already flowing. This post ignores these facts.

🟢 4️⃣ On “Don’t get mad when people ask about cash”

→ No one is mad, but people should be accurate. Pretending PHE has no revenue ignores Engsolve and FEED Testing income, and that’s misleading to other investors.

🟢 5️⃣ Final context:

→ UHL, NH2, Bridgend FTU, Aviox — this ecosystem is progressing. The trolls constantly try to pretend nothing is happening, because they want retail fear to suppress the stock.→ The reality is very different: engineering, testing, licensing, and revenues are happening, and the business model is sound.

@Moab, 6 Jun 2025 17:16

"I don't care how long HUI's new chums have been around; they are trading, and PHE is not. I think Engsolve have taken their eye off PHE, and it is mouldering in the long grass."

🚩 Moab’s latest “trading” narrative is highly misleading — let’s unpack it:

🛠️ Fact: InEnTec has legacy operations in the US (hazardous waste treatment) — this is not a hydrogen trading business linked to HUI.

🛠️ Fact: HUI’s new MENA licence is pre-revenue — no trading yet. The RNS makes this clear: these projects are to be developed over the next 24 months — zero confirmed plant construction, zero confirmed income.

🔥 Meanwhile, PHE IS trading:

✅ Engsolve is delivering paid engineering services, with record profits YTD.

✅ The DMG FTU is generating revenue through paid Feedstock Testing for NH2 and other clients.

✅ PHE is actively progressing commercial licensing — exactly as outlined in its most recent corporate updates.

👉 Moab’s claim that "they are trading, PHE is not" is simply false.→ HUI is not trading on InEnTec MENA licences yet.→ PHE is trading through Engsolve and DMG Feedstock Testing.

💡 Final point: Comparing InEnTec’s historic US ops to current HUI MENA status is a classic false equivalence designed to mislead readers.PHE is building out a true IP-driven licensing platform — not peddling 20-year-old third-party US tech.

@Patxaran Thank you for proving my point over and over.