London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

Spot on, @TheOne — your first post hits harder than most who've posted here for years.

Everything you've highlighted aligns with the real fundamentals that too many choose to ignore or distort:

✅ £1M+ in engineering contracts through Engsolve – not just revenue, but operational validation.

✅ Bridgend FTU installed and functional – a major technical milestone, not just talk.

✅ International patents granted – IP legally locked and now globally defendable.

✅ National H2 rollout and Avioxx SAF alignment – two major commercial tracks progressing.

You're absolutely right to call out the coordinated noise. We’ve seen this tactic before: sow doubt, bury facts, manipulate sentiment during low volume, then pretend it’s "just healthy scepticism." It’s not. It’s agenda-driven deramping masquerading as analysis.

This is a long game — and real investors understand that execution takes time, but the pieces are falling into place.

The trolls will vanish when the next leg up confirms. Thanks for stepping in and reminding the room what actual due diligence and truth-based commentary looks like.

Glad you're here. Stay vocal. 💬📊

📌 Preface (Listen to our podcast here) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mDRMdx-kApbuSLbYTu8Ka0PKAP3ULXPO/view?usp=sharing

In our latest deep-dive voice session, I asked Trifusion AI—our advanced analytics and charting intelligence platform—to conduct a surgical dissection of loadsadough’s latest claim that Powerhouse Energy Group (PHE) is “only in Phase 1, do not buy”. What followed was a technically rigorous takedown, rooted in real market data, verified institutional behaviour, and multi-timeframe technical confirmation. This isn’t “copium”—this is counter-disinformation backed by hard analytics.

🔍 Why loadsadough is off the mark: issue of “Phase 1” Labelling

What loadsadough tries to frame as a “Stage 1” stock shows clear price structure maturation on higher timeframes. The weekly chart reveals long-term support holding and accumulation pressure building, suggesting a cyclical bottom, not the beginning of a naive pump cycle.

Ignoring Institutional Quiet Positioning

Analysis of dark pool activity and order book asymmetries indicates signs of stealth accumulation. If PHE were truly in a “do not buy” zone, we wouldn’t see this sort of block-trade absorption or volume/demand compression patterns.

Contradicts Established Technical Patterns. The four-hour, daily, and weekly charts exhibit textbook multi-timeframe bullish convergence:

Price support above anchored VWAP Key EMAs coiling. Volatility funnel tightening → often precedes explosive breakout phases. Dismisses Recent RNSs and Revenue Events. The “Phase 1” narrative fails to incorporate Engsolve’s revenue-generating momentum, multiple patent grants, and a progressing FEED study with National H2—all hard proof of an evolving operational and commercial platform.

Leans on Selective Quoting to Gatekeep.

Quoting “Stan’s book” without context is a lazy attempt to use textbook theory as dogma. It’s not analysis; it’s gatekeeping dressed in faux authority. Price-action must be read dynamically, not as a binary stage checklist.

Omits Broader Market Context. loadsadough completely ignores the shifting macro tailwinds behind waste-to-hydrogen and hydrogen infrastructure sectors. When government funding pipelines, green mandates, and industrial partners are all aligning, blanket pessimism is not analysis; it’s narrative control.

The recent posts by @jancux01 on this forum. Using verified RNS data, technical milestones, and project fundamentals, Trifusion AI exposes how this account misrepresents key facts, constructs strawman arguments, and pushes a biased narrative under the guise of structured analysis. (Podcast link here) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1foDypspVeEbkN1P2LFpyxTg2167REXlP/view?usp=sharing

1. False Equivalence Between Intent and Execution

Claim: The poster repeatedly downplays real operational and contractual milestones by conflating intent with lack of execution — e.g., suggesting FEED completion and patents mean little because they aren't full-scale deployments.

Dishonesty: This ignores how infrastructure projects naturally follow phased de-risking (feasibility → FEED → FID → execution). By dismissing pre-FID milestones, they mislead readers about the significance of near-term progress.

2. Cherry-Picking Facts While Ignoring Contradictory Data

Claim: Posts mention a lack of commercial DMG deployment while completely ignoring the FTU demonstration, recent RNS disclosures (22 May & 20 May), and insider buying.

Dishonesty: Omitting positive, verifiable developments gives the false impression of inactivity or stagnation. That's disinformation by omission — intellectually dishonest at best.

3. Presenting Opinion as Probabilistic “Discipline” Without Structure

Claim: Their “10–20% FID probability” is pitched as conservative and objective.

Dishonesty: No framework, no weighting, no quantifiable thresholds were included — just vague references to risk categories. They reject counter-estimates as “optimism” but offer no model transparency in return. That’s not analysis — it’s posturing.

4. Misuse of Technical Jargon to Imply Authority

Claim: The poster drops terminology like “TRL levels,” “bankable momentum,” and “conditional thresholds” without defining how they apply specifically to PHE.

Dishonesty: This is linguistic inflation. It creates an illusion of credibility while obscuring a lack of depth. There is no true analytical depth or technical audit.

5. Repeated Reframing to Shift the Burden of Proof

Claim: “If you believe the odds of FID are higher, you must provide a full roadmap and timeline.”

Dishonesty: This flips the standard burden of proof. The poster asserts pessimistic probabilities without validating their model but demands others produce full operational blueprints to counter them. That’s not analysis — it’s rhetorical sleight of hand.

6. Pattern of Passive-Aggressive Tone and Forum Manipulation

Claim: Pretends to take a “disciplined” stance while deriding others as over-optimistic or naïve.

Dishonesty: This undermines genuine dialogue and positions the user as an “objective truth-teller” while operating with the same bias they accuse others of. It's a classic manipulation tactic to appear superior while shutting down legitimate counterpoints.

United H2 Limited (UHL), a private clean hydrogen firm gearing up for an IPO, has just released another investor email confirming its independently reviewed valuation of $82.6 million — a 4x increase from where they started. That alone is notable, but here’s where it gets interesting for those of us following Powerhouse Energy (PHE).

UHL’s own words: “National H2 is in the final stages of completing its FEED study at its Western Australian facility, moving toward a final investment decision for its waste-to-energy project.”

That FEED isn’t a footnote — it’s one of the final milestones UHL is using to justify two new acquisitions and to push forward with IPO readiness. And who’s delivering that FEED? Engsolve — the engineering arm of Powerhouse Energy. That’s not a rumour, it’s in the public domain.

So while some continue to scoff about “no revenue” or “no traction,” the reality is PHE is quietly embedded in the infrastructure build-up behind a portfolio that's attracting institutional capital, international contracts, and sovereign-scale project development.

In fact, UHL’s own update mentions trials with Coca-Cola, Saudi Telecom, and major LATAM transport operators. These aren’t pipe dreams — they’re the exact kind of serious, scaled engagements that PHE is now orbiting through its engineering contracts.

If UHL successfully IPOs in Q3 or Q4 — and they’ve said they have a four-month runway to do so — it puts Engsolve’s deliverables on a much wider radar. That could have commercial, reputational, and financial benefits that ripple straight back into Powerhouse. Sometimes progress isn’t loud. Sometimes it’s doing the work behind the scenes while others play catch-up. And right now, PHE is doing that work — and it’s being stitched into a much larger story than most are paying attention to.

National H2 is one of UHL’s portfolio companies. The FEED isn’t a throwaway milestone; it’s a precondition to unlocking institutional capital and executing the liquidity event UHL is actively selling to its shareholders. And who’s delivering that FEED? Engsolve — the wholly owned engineering arm of Powerhouse Energy. That’s publicly confirmed. Powerhouse isn't being paid in future promises. They’re delivering engineering work now across front-end design, systems integration, and new pilot architecture. Once National H2 completes this FEED, it likely triggers one of two things: a capital deployment phase or a final investment decision backed by new money.

And if UHL lists — which they’ve now told investors could happen in as little as four months — then we’re looking at a possible acceleration of activity, visibility, and capital across their hydrogen portfolio. That places PHE at the engineering core of a post-IPO infrastructure expansion wave.

More broadly, this is the exact pathway that converts early-stage tech like DMG into repeatable project revenue. Engsolve builds the foot

@janux01

I’ve read your response, and honestly, it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny — not because it’s badly written, but because it leans on presentation rather than substance.

Let’s be clear: formatting a table and calling it “disciplined analysis” doesn’t make the inputs any less speculative. You said your model is based on “real-world criteria” — project maturity, capital needs, market signals, and historical FIDs. That sounds good, but none of those were quantified. No timelines, no weighting, no risk bands — just labels.

You’ve also now listed your sources after the fact, but none of that was actually cited in the original post. If your analysis was built on RNS data and real contract milestones, why not include any dates or links? Saying “publicly available” isn’t the same as actually being transparent.

Now let’s talk about the 60–70% FID probability we put forward. Of course, it’s a probability — no one’s pretending it’s a fact. But that figure is based on hard progress markers:

A published DNV validation of the technology. Active FEED engagement with National Hydrogen (with a known completion timeline)

£1 million in revenue reported in just four months from Engsolve. Three patents granted in the US and EU in the last four months. Insider share purchase of nearly 2 million shares at the support level. Multiple regulatory catalysts align across the hydrogen and waste recovery sectors.

If you’re going to argue against that number, the burden is on you to bring a better model, not just to say “uncertainty exists” as if that settles the matter. We all know FID is conditional. The point is that Powerhouse is visibly progressing toward the required conditions. That makes a Q4 2025 FID far more realistic than your 10–20% estimate implies.

You tried to rebut each point, but most of your counters boil down to “it hasn’t happened yet.” That’s not analysis — that’s stating the obvious. FID, by definition, means we’re talking about forward-looking thresholds. Nobody’s saying it's guaranteed. But pretending the odds are that low while ignoring active contracts, a working FTU, patent milestones, and actual revenue? That’s just pessimism with no teeth. If you're going to model risk, show your working. Otherwise, you're just dressing up a guess in a nice chart.

@jancux01

🎯 Response to “FID Probability” Post – Visual Fact Check

“Subjective probability of FID within 6 months: 10–20%.”

← That number is plucked from nowhere. Let’s fact-check every one of your inputs.

✅ Technological Readiness – Claimed: 🔻 Negative

✔️ FACT CHECK: TECHNOLOGY VALIDATED

✅ PHE’s DMG® tech was independently verified by DNV GL with a formal Statement of Feasibility.

✅ Multiple patents granted and international licensing groundwork underway.

✅ Operational Feedstock Testing Unit (FTU) demonstrated to stakeholders.

🟡 FEED Progress – Claimed: 🔸 Neutral to slightly positive

✔️ FACT CHECK: SOLID PROGRESS

✅ FEED contract with National Hydrogen in the delivery phase.

✅ Multiple design studies and consultancy projects are active via Engsolve.

📎 This is active engineering — not conceptual fluff.

✅ Engsolve Revenue – Claimed: ⚪️ Irrelevant

✔️ FACT CHECK: REVENUE IS NEVER IRRELEVANT

✅ Over £1M in revenue generated in Q1–Q2 2025

✅ Commercial pipeline validates internal IP-to-income transfer.

✅ Supports operational costs and positions Engsolve as a profit centre.

📎 Revenue proves engagement, traction, and engineering deliverables.

❌ Market Environment – Claimed: 🔻 Negative

✔️ FACT CHECK: MARKET BACKDROP POSITIVE

✅ Hydrogen, decarbonisation, and plastic reuse are key policy pillars in the UK, EU, and global agendas.

✅ PHE’s tech aligns with UKRI, DfT, and Green Deal frameworks.

📎 If this is “negative,” you haven’t read an ESG report in the last five years.

❌ Management Performance – Claimed: 🔻 Negative

✔️ FACT CHECK: OBJECTIVE PROGRESS ACHIEVED

✅ CEO Paul Emmitt has delivered FTU commissioning and scaled Engsolve into a contract-winning engine.

✅ Executing on deliverables without premature hype.

📎 That’s performance. The kind of regulators and investors that can actually be measured.

❌ Investor Sentiment (Forums) – Claimed: 🔻 Negative

✔️ FACT CHECK: FORUMS AREN’T FINANCIAL INDICATORS

✅ Stock sentiment = forum noise + narrative warfare.

✅ Institutions and insiders care about deliverables and earnings, not troll posts.

📎 If you need a real-time indicator, ask the order book, not a keyboard warrior.

Testpack...... Let’s break this down — again — because once more you’ve chosen to misrepresent facts, mislead with half-truths, and spin your own disillusionment into a false equivalence between EQTEC and PHE.

❌ “PHE doesn’t have a working DMG plant.”

→ False by omission.

PHE’s Feedstock Testing Unit (FTU) was commissioned and proven operational, with the DMG process physically demonstrated in front of multiple stakeholders, including engineers, analysts, and institutional representatives at the CMD.

You didn’t see plastic enter the furnace? You weren’t there. But those who saw the test parameters, the flare, and the physical structure of the reactor, not a butane gas hoax, as you now bizarrely suggest.

❌ “EQTEC has commercial plants, PHE doesn’t.”

→ Apples and oranges.

EQT’s small-scale biomass installations, such as the one in Tuscany, operate on agricultural waste. Meanwhile, PHE is advancing a more versatile DMG platform, designed for non-recyclable plastics and rubber — a completely different class of feedstock and complexity.

And EQT’s “commercial plants” haven’t reported efficiency metrics or stable cash flows. So what’s the definition of “commercial”? That it runs? Or that it runs profitably and predictably?

❌ “Both companies fail to disclose.”

→ Incorrect.

PHE provides RNS disclosures, project progress, and transparent updates on its subsidiary, Engsolve, which, by the way, just delivered £1M in revenue over four months and holds operational contracts that EQT doesn’t match in scope or recency.

❌ “Do the technologies even work?”

→ This is lazy trolling.

PHE’s tech has been independently validated by DNV GL and backed by multiple patents.

If EQT’s olive husk burners give you more confidence, that’s your bias, not evidence.

❌ “CEO falsehoods.”

→ Sloppy, unsubstantiated smear.

You throw accusations of dishonesty without naming dates, quotes, or context. Regulatory officers don’t let RNS statements slide. If you have proof, produce it. If not, you’re libelling by insinuation.

🎯 Final Word – Exposing Testpack3’s Agenda

Let’s be honest: this isn’t about EQTEC vs. PHE. This is about one individual — Testpack3 — pushing a long-standing anti-PHE narrative rooted in either personal bitterness or something more strategic.

And here's the reality:He lies about the CMD — claiming no plastic was seen entering the system, while dozens of credible attendees witnessed the system in operation. He ignores facts — like the £1M revenue from Engsolve, patent validations, DMG tech certification by DNV GL, or tangible engineering progress. He obsesses over semantics, calling out "similarities" in business blurbs while omitting the entire underlying difference in scope, IP, and process flow. He smears leadership with vague accusations, while never producing a single piece of documented evidence or context.

1. Claim: “PHE does not have any 'working' commercial DMG plants in operation, anywhere in the World.”

Response:

While it's accurate that Powerhouse Energy Group (PHE) is in the pre-commercial phase, significant strides have been made toward operational readiness. The company has completed the mechanical phase of its Feedstock Testing Unit (FTU) and is progressing through commissioning phases. Additionally, PHE has secured multiple patents in 2025, reinforcing the credibility and protection of its DMG® technology.

2. Claim: “EQT has at least 3 'plants' in commercial operation in the World...”

Response:

EQTEC has indeed reported operational plants, such as the facility in Ciudad Real, Spain, which has demonstrated high operational availability. However, other projects have faced delays and challenges, including the North Fork project in California, which has experienced construction and commissioning setbacks.

3. Claim: “Both companies have no tangible income.”

Response:

PHE's subsidiary, Engsolve, reported £1 million in revenue over a four-month period, indicating tangible income generation. EQTEC reported revenues of €2.5 million in 2023, demonstrating active commercial operations.

4. Claim: “Does the technology work?”

Response:

PHE's DMG® technology has undergone independent validation by DNV GL, confirming its technical and operational viability. The company continues to advance its technology through rigorous testing and development phases.

5. Claim: “The CEO's of both companies have been known to issue falsehoods.”

Response:

Allegations of dishonesty are serious and require substantiated evidence. Both companies are publicly listed and subject to stringent regulatory oversight, including disclosures via the Regulatory News Service (RNS). Without concrete proof, such claims remain speculative.

This post is not an analysis — it’s a blend of misinformation, selective framing, and speculative cynicism dressed up as a comparison. You’ve taken two companies operating in a cutting-edge sector and tried to reduce them to failed experiments, without acknowledging regulatory progress, technological validation, project cycles, or capital market realities. Your critique of Powerhouse Energy conveniently ignores: Patent protection in global markets. Independent validation of DMG® by DNV. £1M revenue in four months from a wholly-owned subsidiary.Ongoing engineering contracts through Engsolve.A working feedstock testing unit (FTU) backed by field data. Insider investment from Louise Emmitt at critical support zones.

@DC2601 Your statement contains inaccuracies and potential misinterpretations regarding the relationship between EngSolve and PHE. Let’s fact-check and clarify what’s happening.

1️⃣ "EngSolve and PHE are under one umbrella"

📌 Not Correct. EngSolve and PHE are separate entities.EngSolve is an independent engineering consultancy that provides services to multiple clients, including PHE.PHE contracts EngSolve for engineering services—they are not a subsidiary, nor are they under the same corporate structure. The relationship is a business service arrangement, not a joint financial structure.💡 Clarification: PHE is a client of EngSolve, not a parent company or joint entity.

2️⃣ "EngSolve performs all services for PHE and cross-charges to balance the books."

📌 Partially Correct, but Misleading. EngSolve does provide engineering services to PHE, but this is a normal client-consultant relationship. The idea of “cross-charging” implies internal accounting adjustments within the same financial structure, which is not the case. PHE pays EngSolve for services rendered, just like any other company paying a contractor.💡 Clarification: PHE is engaging EngSolve as an external service provider, not an internal cost-balancing mechanism.

3️⃣ "PHE won’t need immediate debt or raises because of EngSolve."

📌 Incorrect Assumption. EngSolve providing services to PHE does not impact PHE’s financial position significantly.

PHE’s need for funding is determined by its business expansion, project development, and cash flow management—not by its relationship with EngSolve. If PHE requires additional capital for project execution, it may still need funding via debt, grants, or equity raises. 💡 Clarification: EngSolve providing services does not eliminate the need for funding. PHE still needs to manage cash flow for commercial scaling.

✅ Final Verdict: Mostly Incorrect with a Few Partial Truths

🚀 PHE and EngSolve are separate companies—they are not under the same financial umbrella.

📌 EngSolve is a service provider, not a financial balancing mechanism.

💡 PHE’s funding needs are separate from EngSolve’s service agreements.

👉 Conclusion: Your statement oversimplifies and misinterprets the financial relationship between PHE and EngSolve. Investors should focus on PHE’s actual revenue model and funding strategy rather than assuming internal financial cross-charging.

@testpack3 Taking Down the Latest Troll Attempt – Exposing More Misinformation 🔥

Once again, we have a shill post trying to deflect from real discussions by making factually incorrect claims and dismissing valid technical concerns. Let’s break down this nonsense and expose the dishonesty behind it.

1️⃣ “The tar issue has not been debated because it’s a non-issue.”

📌 Rebuttal: This is an outright misrepresentation of reality. Tar formation is one of the biggest engineering challenges in gasification systems—globally recognized across the entire industry.

✅ Multiple gasification projects have failed due to tar-related system fouling, including Air Products' £1bn failure at Tees Valley.✅ Tar is a well-documented byproduct of thermal gasification—pretending otherwise is either ignorance or deliberate deception.✅ The reason PHE doesn’t RNS “problems” about tar is because their system is designed to manage it effectively. That doesn’t mean it’s not a key engineering consideration.

💡 Reality Check: Saying “tar isn’t an issue” without addressing how it’s managed is like saying EV batteries don’t degrade over time. It’s misleading and factually incorrect.

👉 Troll Tactic: Pretend that if a company doesn’t RNS an issue, it doesn’t exist—which is not how engineering works.

2️⃣ “PHE’s only comment on tar is that they produce char, which is saleable.”

📌 Rebuttal: This is deliberately misleading and shows zero understanding of gasification chemistry.

✅ Tar is an intermediate stage in gasification—it doesn’t just “turn into char” by magic.✅ The DMG process uses high temperatures and rapid quenching to minimize tar formation, breaking it down into cleaner syngas fractions.✅ Any remaining heavier hydrocarbons are condensed and collected—this controlled removal is what prevents system fouling.

💡 Reality Check: PHE’s process actively manages tar—it doesn’t eliminate it from physics itself.

👉 Troll Tactic: Twist a technical statement to hide the fact that tar management is part of the process design.

3️⃣ “Your previous nonsense compared DMG to incineration.”

📌 Rebuttal: This is a blatant strawman argument—nobody ever said DMG is incineration.✅ DMG is gasification, not combustion—this is well understood.✅ The point about tar is relevant because both incineration and gasification deal with complex hydrocarbon breakdown.✅ Air Products failed not because they “burned waste” but because they didn’t properly manage gasification byproducts like tar and system fouling.

💡 Reality Check: Pointing out the failures of other gasifiers isn’t an attack on DMG—it’s showing why PHE’s approach is superior.

👉 Troll Tactic: Misrepresent the argument to make it sound like an attack on DMG when it’s actually an engineering discussion.

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for swazers

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for swazers

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Please enter at least 2 characters

No results found

Search results

Recently viewed

Trending