Member Info for tennents

Ceres do not need to say anything.

1. Goldman have already issued a statement rubbishing the Grizzly paper

2. Goldman are:

- independent

- authoritative and globally recognised

- repeating, and thereby reinforcing, their recent statement putting Ceres in their ‘top-pick’ category

3. Grizzly made themselves look pretty stupid in launching a short that was

- plainly poorly researched

- delivered in a clear ‘hit and run’ manner

- repudiated by Goldman Sachs within 24 hours

- abandoned by Grizzly within 24 hours making them look seriously unprofessional

Ceres are, given the above, rightly treating this episode with the contempt it richly deserves.

This sh*t show is now over. It is definitely NOT in Ceres interest to prolong it for a second longer.

Sunday Times story that Drax has cut the size of their planned carbon capture unit by half.

Remarkable how many CCS projects are falling to pieces. BP, Drax and the Acorn projects in Aberdeen all in the last couple of weeks. Seems this wonder technology is not as attractive as its advocates suggest.

Oh well, guess we will just have to produce more green H2.

Goldman is not a broker that works for Ceres.

They gave Ceres their ‘top pick’ status for Europe.

A lot of serious fund managers give that rating very serious attention.

If you choose not to that is fine. But you can be damn sure the Ceres board does.

Why do you want to pay any attention to something you should scrape of the bottom of your shoe.

That now hate buying anything made made in the USA.

Canada has the potential to be huge for us:

- they produce colossal amounts of hydropower

- they currently sell a high percentage of it to the USA at discounted rates

- they have been in discussion with Germany about supplying the with liquid H2 shipped from the east coast

- they not hate buying anything made in the USA

Canada and Mark Carney are not just pi—ed off with Trumps USA, they are completely reconfiguring their trade relationships, with Europe being a major part of that.

They are done with being the’junior partner’ to the US breaking out big time from that relationship, presenting themselves to Europe and Asia as a ‘reliable’ and ‘quality’ partner.

With US suppliers like off the agenda, this is a new and massive opportunity for ITM.

It was not an elephant. It was a 'drive-by shooting' announcement designed to distress weak holders and spook them into selling and a Grizzly profit.

The Goldman statement was directed towards Goldman customers, rather than CWR holders. Goldman gave CWR one of its highest-level recommendations recently and an aggressive price target. When Grizzly come out of the woodwork and suggests that Goldman's (and many other banks') targets are nonsense, they will not sit still for that. Hence, the statement to reinforce their original recommendation and Goldman credibility.

That being done, CWR did not need to make any comment. Responding to a Grizzly clown car crash is 'an unwarranted waste of management time'.

Quite right too.

This whole episode is like small boys playing 'chap door and run away'. A short open for 24 hours, a marginal profit, damage to their reputation and excellent ammunition in the case for tightening rules on shorter stock manipulation activities.

We can now look forward to reversing the reversal and forgetting this ever happened.

1863

You realise that the combined investment from the five partners will be well in excess of £1bn. Serious organisations do not spend that sort of cash unless they are sure about their investment and the returns they expect to make from the "products manufactured elsewhere".

Ceres income comes from those five corporations. What do you think that Grizzly could know that they do not - having spent a great deal of their time and money doing due diligence and investment appraisal?

Some thoughts I posted on ADVFN yesterday.

Just to be absolutely clear . . . .

A group of major international corporations, including Doosan, Thermax, Denso, Delta and Weichai, individually conducted comprehensive:

- Ceres technology due diligence

- market research

- manufacturing process due diligence

They then allocated large slabs of their capital to:

- pay Ceres up-front fees

- build factories

- finance the working capital and new business development costs

However, we are now to believe that they are all f*ckwits, each making the same set of colossal mistakes.

Because some shorter called Grizzly says so?

Really, is that actually a serious question that merits any credit whatsoever?

Eastwood

Your expectations there are wildly unrealistic, a bit like our two little friends.lol

The US Fed decision will not be announced untill 19.00 UK time.

False claims, on performance I assume, is a very interesting insight. I wonder how many ex-China operators have already experienced that. Not a good message for potential future export customers.

On the other hand, for ITM, reinforcing its strategy of using hard operational data in selling out kit’s performance to potential customers. ‘Show me the money’.

HairyD

The key reason the data centre 'won' over the location contest over the BP project is the Lackenby Grid Sub-Station in Redcar.

It was built to supply both British Steel Redcar and the ICI petrochemical complex, as well as feed the output from the Hartlepool nuclear power station into the grid. So Lackenby is a very large-scale connector. While Hartlepool is due to close circa 2030, the Dogger Bank wind farm (3.6MW) will connect to the grid at Lackeny from 2026. There is also the Teeside Offshore windfarm, which will connect onshore at Lackenby.

Redcar was, in my opinion, always going to be the best location for a major UK data centre. It offers a guaranteed supply of power at the required scale within the projected build timescale. None of the 'connection date of 2029 at the earliest' issues that many other sites face. In short, the Redcar site was a one-off in the UK to accommodate the power-hungry, monster data centre that Keir Starmer has offered the US hyperscalers.

A further consideration was (probably) BP's track record on promising carbon capture projects. Starting in 2005-2006 BP announced plans for one of the earliest large-scale CCS proposals in the North Sea, the Peterhead CCS Project, in collaboration with Scottish Power and the UK government. It collapsed when BP wanted more or less blank cheque Govt funding of the project.

Bilbo

It is a real opportunity emerging out of the blue. I wonder if Dennis can expand the scope to be an economic development ‘entrepreneur’ and present ITM as an economic and commercial and technical supplier of a green solution for the UK govt. This is not just about kit, it is about solutioning a multi faceted problem that delivers wins for a range of stakeholders and a big gain for ITM.

Mega fat data centre lol

It means

1). The mega fat centre will get built

2). UK will not p.ss away a fortune in £billions subsidising a BP experiment in carbon capture and storage

3). Means there is greater emphasis on green project proposals to fill the gap in UK supply

4) increases the funds available for UK govt support for green

5). Increases the pressure on UK govt to address the waste of offshore electricity capacity and divert it to green hydrogen production rather than curtailment payments which are already reaching obscene sums

All in all good potential for ITM.

This article summarises the reasons why SOFCs are so important for the data centre markets. (It is based on material from Bloom).

An interesting read.

https://www.utilitydive.com/spons/why-fuel-cells-are-redefining-on-site-power-for-data-centers/803449/

Hairydavey. My money is on ITM holding a Hydropulse announcement until they have 3-4 signed up.

That way Dennis announces the arrival of a new market, rather than just a new product/service. Much greater impact.

Wildly catastrophising !

That is very disappointing. I wonder on what grounds they beat ITM.

$100m buyback of PSH shares.