Member Info for tennents

Yes, 27million to go, but at least we have a first step.

Importantly, it also anchors the price at which other shares might be bought, eg Delta or other partners. Before this nobody had any idea what Bosch would or would not accept.

Is this possibly a future order ?

Pembroke Dock, Wales - June 2025

Haush Ltd, a pioneering green energy technology company, is pleased to announce it has been granted planning permission by Pembrokeshire County Council for the development of a 15 MW green hydrogen production facility located at Gate 4, Pembroke Dockyard, Pembroke Dock, SA72 6TE.

Three Neptune 5 units make 15, and the planning application site plan shows three electrolyser units. We will find out soon enough.

This is not the only project at this level of development in the UK today.

Bsid1

Statement 1 - What you the holder were supposed to think THEN, sell your shares and bring the price down for the cunning shorter.

Statement 2 - What the cunning shorter is going to do NOW (with your cheap shares) and make a load of money.

Ever so clever . . . . . . don't you think?

Citadel reduced from 0.70% to 0.67% on Thursday.

Given we have risen 30.6% in the last month, cannot say I am surprised and Friday’s rise increases the pressure on the shorters.

Expect to see further reductions

Eastwood

Qube has made 13 increases and 10 decreases, their current average is 42p.

They have banked £225k on their 10 short reductions.

At 94p, they are currently £2.377m underwater.

Qube were much later in here than Helikon, and I have no idea why they did not close their ITM short at the same time they closed their CWR position at the end of March. That banked them £2.6m, and closing here (we were around 25p) would have seen them bank £725k before all costs. Very odd to do one but not the other, given the multiple similarities across the two.

BTW - at 25p the Helikon unrealised ITM 'profit' was close to £18.5m. Why? I have no idea.

Matt

I built a spreadsheet for the Helikon (and Qube) short movements.

The Helikon current average is £1.28. To date, they have banked £5.9m on 12 position reductions.

At 94p, they are still £6.1m in 'profit'. These numbers do not include short interest charges or the cost of buying back the shares.

I have no idea what other derivatives or hedges are involved in this trade.

Given we are now up 36% in a month, it is surprising that the shorts are still here. Qube cleared out at 55p, having come in initially at over £3, taking £2.6m before expenses. They closed on 28 March, now over 3 months ago.

Goldman certainly do not like ITM. Their tipping history from the last couple of years is here.

https://www.stockomendation.com/tips/6-dec-24-goldman-sachs-sell-itm-itm-power

Kitesurfer

Goldman also has the capability to engineer and supply a derivative that Helikon could use as their hedge.

Helikon still have to buy the shares to give back to their lender, and as Dibs pointed out, in this case where the price has increased significantly over the last 6 months, why would sit still taking a loss on the short and a gain on your hedge. A zero sum game except that hedge fees and short interest charges continue to be incurred. Hence not zero sum.

It would seem more sensible to take the short profit AND ride the gain on the hedge as the price rises, hence maximising profits at both ends. All very curious.

And the second part....

🧠 Evaluation from the Perspective of an Intelligent Investor

1. Style & Structure

• Conversational, informal, and occasionally emotive.

• Lacks professional polish expected in serious investment research.

• Repetitive and loosely structured (e.g., "I am not making this up" is repeated multiple times).

2. Quality of Evidence

• Some useful comparative numbers are mentioned (e.g., cost of hydrogen types, budget figures).

• No consistent sourcing, no charted data, and no primary evidence or valuation analysis.

• No discussion of actual stock prices, forward-looking earnings, or project-specific forecasts.

3. Quality of Argument

• Argues that green hydrogen is uncompetitive compared to blue hydrogen and nuclear.

• Repeatedly emphasizes cost, lack of offtake agreements, and FID difficulties.

• These are legitimate points, but the argument lacks market data or structured risk analysis.

4. Critical Evaluation

• The piece is one-sided: it focuses only on the negatives of green hydrogen.

• No discussion of bullish counterpoints (e.g., long-term policy tailwinds, declining electrolyser costs, IRA effects in the US).

• Doesn't weigh opposing views or investment theses.

5. Gaps in Evidence

• No equity analysis (e.g., ITM Power’s balance sheet, pipeline, order book, or valuation metrics).

• No cost trend projections or competitive benchmarking.

• No insight into alternative clean tech equities or portfolio impact of divestment.

6. Critical Thinking

• Shows some independent skepticism.

• However, it conflates short-term policy imbalance with permanent market failure.

• Lacks systems thinking or macroeconomic framing.

7. Persuasiveness of Argument

• May persuade casual retail investors through repetition and bold claims.

• Would not persuade a seasoned institutional investor without robust financial modelling, competitive analysis, and a counterfactual.

• The tone verges on rant rather than reasoned persuasion.

🧾 Final Verdict (Investor View):

Would a seasoned investor act on this recommendation to sell?

→ Highly Unlikely.

While the concerns raised (e.g., green hydrogen cost gap, policy preference for CCS) are valid, the presentation lacks depth, rigour, and balance. A professional investor would require:

• Comparative project economics

• Equity research metrics

• Forecasts of LCOH (levelized cost of hydrogen)

• Geopolitical and regulatory analysis

✅ Summary

Aspect Rating (Out of 100%)

Academic Dissertation Quality 45% (Low Merit / Borderline Pass)

Professional Investment Analysis 35% (Too speculative, lacks data)

Retail Investor Persuasiveness 65% (Emotionally convincing but analytically weak)

Institutional Investor Persuasion 20% (Would not act on this alone)

________________________________________

Would you like me to help rewrite this as a professional-grade investment memo or a Master's-level dissertation? I can structure

Intrigued by the sea of green when I logged on this morning, I found the work of a very busy fish. All that effort deserves some assessment, and here it is - with a little help from Chat GPT. Enjoy.

What would be the examination assessment criteria be for a top-grade UK university Master's degree in Investment Management dissertation. Apply those criteria to the attached document and give a % mark for each criterion.

In addition, take a perspective of an intelligent investor reading this material and comment on its style, structure, quality of evidence, quality of argument, evidence of critical evaluation of the evidence, gaps in the evidence, quality of critical thinking and persuasiveness of the arguments made, and taken as a whole, the likelihood of a seasoned investor to implement the intention of the advice to sell their shares.

ChatGPT said:

Thank you for sharing the document. Below is a comprehensive academic and investor-facing evaluation of the provided text, based on the UK Master's level dissertation standards for Investment Management.

🎓 Academic Assessment: Based on UK Dissertation Criteria

Criterion Evaluation Summary % Score

1. Research Question & Objectives No formal question is defined; implied objective is to argue against investing in green hydrogen equities (e.g. ITM). 45%

2. Literature Review Informal and non-systematic. Sources include investor presentations, RNS, and government data, but lacks structure. 50%

3. Methodology No formal method defined. The argument is anecdotal and commentary-based, not derived from systematic analysis. 30%

4. Data Collection & Quality Relies on select figures (e.g. CAPEX comparisons, UK budget allocations), but lacks citations and source transparency. 50%

5. Analysis & Findings Basic comparative analysis (green vs blue hydrogen, CCS, nuclear), but lacks modelling or depth of interpretation. 55%

6. Use of Investment Theory No formal financial frameworks applied (e.g. NPV, risk-adjusted returns, DCF, CAPM). Purely narrative. 25%

7. Originality & Critical Thinking Displays conviction and some independent thinking; critical of government policy; however, lacks academic rigour. 60%

8. Structure & Coherence Informally structured. Some repetition and conversational tone. Ideas are scattered rather than built up logically. 50%

9. Writing Quality Casual, blog-like tone. No citations or formatting consistent with academic standards. Grammar is generally clean. 55%

10. Conclusions & Recommendations Strongly worded opinions (e.g. "sell your shares") but unsupported by formal risk/return evidence. 40%

11. Referencing & Integrity No academic referencing. No bibliography. Breaches academic expectations for source citation. 30%

12. Contribution to Knowledge Offers a contrarian opinion with some interesting insights but not academically grounded. 45%

🎓 Overall Academic Grade: 45% (Borderline Pass / Low Merit)

This text would not be acceptable as a Master's-level disser

Yes Bilbo, shows as a sell on ADVFN too. Certainly not the first to mis-record.

Be patient; ‘ near term’ does not mean next week. The first orders from Hydropulse may be August/ early September.

But they are certainly coming. Hydropulse is an extremely intelligent strategic move and it will reward us handsomely in the ‘near term’.

Have a good weekend.

I think they are referring to the award of the FEED contract.

Digitalis - you are correct and that is a possibility. I am sure ITM will address that risk in their project due diligence before taking a project on. I suspect this will not be a real issue as we will very probably generate a very high quality list of leads as this announcement is absorbed.

Digitalis

We will be providing the user with a primary source of energy. What happens if they no longer need any energy seems to be the question you are asking. This is not comparable to leasing a truck or a forklift. Energy is mission critical, not optional.

Looking for a similarity or comparison, you might consider Rolls Royce where the airlines pay for the engine hours used. I.e. the engine power provided.

Swingman. Is that falling from 25p? No, thought not.

And to save you the effort, yes we know that once upon a time in 2021 it surfed the hype fuelled heights of £7.

If you thing we are going back to 25p you had best not invest. Many of us have the opposite view.

Swingman

In Sheffield there is a large, and expanding, factory with a large, and still recruiting, workforce. Commenting on a recent photograph of a very busy looking shop floor, our CEO said ‘everything you see is being built for a customer order and not for stock’.

From this data, what response might you offer to your question.

bTW. FID and FEED are not the same thing.

Jeff

Why do you waste your time on a poster who cannot do arithmetic?

Old Chinese proverb. Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Have a good weekend.

Myteethitch

Ordering only 3 SMRs was a politically convenient way of walking back from the initial idea of having two contractors. This enables the Govt to give RR the order and not give a US provider any work. Initially both ‘saving’ money and not exporting jobs and money.

Assuming RR does not screw up (highly unlikely, but not actually impossible), then there will be no reason to introduce a second supplier. RR will get all subsequent orders for UK SMRs, thus winning 100% of the pie and double the revenue initially estimated.

I would not be disappointed in that outcome.