Member Info for TheT

Yes, my thoughts too. Some positions genuinely required, e.g. company sec. But there seems to be deal of overlap in the positions and investor relations always seemed like a bit of fluff (apologies for those involved in that area).
We were told that the last fund raise provided sufficient capital to roll out the next manufacturing plant. From memory, that would be commissioned once the existing plant reached 70% capacity with an expectation of that being by August (but I may be wrong on both counts). Any delays point to that utilization not being met, which means additional cash burn. Add on the additional expenditure for the new senior team, don't be too surprised that another funding round will be required for the the next plant, albeit at a much higher price than the last one, of course.

Whoops, apologies, Bilbo has already posted the link.

Might be worth a listen?
https://www.engineering.linde.com/from-hype-to-reality-hydrogen-seminar

30-Sep-21; 10:00 - 12:30 CET

Yes, this is a really, really serious issue.
It is also embedded in the recently signed Australian Trade Deal (investor-state dispute settlement protocol); as such, it may be hard to extricate ourselves from the proposed Cumbrian coal mine, given that the company holding the mining rights is Australian. If the UK ("democratically" elected) govt does not give clearance, the Australian company will (most likely) be able to take the UK govt to an "industrial tribunal" (not a Court of Law), which, if the govt loses, the UK govt (i.e. UK taxpayers) will pay damages to said Australian company and possibly have to rescind the order to prohibit mining.
"Taking back control " is fantastic, but only if you can trust those empowered to make these decisions.

If you look at the first comment in response to George's tweet, " All very well, but the world needs steel, and you can’t make steel without coal.", you can see why we have such a momentous task ahead of us. Perhaps if someone has a Twitter account (I don't) they could respond to this person and put them right on that one and pass on this link, if possible:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/19/green-steel-swedish-company-ships-first-batch-made-without-using-coal

Posted on phe.
Looks to be an old report (2020), so apologies if posted already. I think it will come down to a matter of trust - will Linde push ITM's electrolyzes at a sufficient rate to bring down costs?

Bilbo, am with Trader on this. "Botched consultation"? It was a consultation of many, many vested interests on bot sides. ITM is not the only UK company in the UK green hydrogen space and yet all the weight of expectations must fall on GC's shoulders. That's a big ask.
But there is a much bigger issue. Blame (and a very, very large part) much be apportioned to those taking the ultimate decisions - Johnson and his govt. The mendacity of the man knows no bounds - he will do what ever is in his interests and his interests alone; he does not give one fig about the interests of the population. The people at BEIS know all too well that "blue" hydrogen is absolutely not the answer in the long run, but they are faced by their maters who are more concerned about what the Daily Mail headlines will be. Plus, the O & G lobby is huge, well organised, and very well funded.
If it helps you to heap all the blame onto one man's shoulders, that is your decision. But it is missing what should be our real target. No one, and I do mean no one, in charge of ITM at the time of the consultation would have made any better progress. Events and more condemnation of the "blue hydrogen" myth over time will play out (eventually) in our favour.

On a separate topic, the talk that break-even does not matter is incorrect. Bilbo is correct - orders today and more importantly payment today is critical. We will quickly burn through the cash stock pile we have given the factory running costs. So orders do absolutely matter, I am with there Bilbo.

Many thanks, Bilbo. Would hate to think I have caused offence, as was not my intention. Keep te faith, keep positive

Bilbo
I take it you are referring to me as being rude. For that I apologize, it was certainly not my intention and I too very much value your input on this board. I just don't think getting exercised on reported new orders is going to help.
I am not as pessimistic as you as having "lost the Govt's hydrogen review"., and, by the way, there are many other companies who provided input in the interest of green hydrogen, such as Ceres, AFC, etc.
My take is this. BEIS and KK recognise that a hydrogen economy is the way to go. I think they also are fully conversant with the problems associated with blue hydrogen, and would favour green hydrogen all day long. But they also have to be pragmatic. To get critical mass in hydrogen production to make even a 20/80% hydrogen/natural gas mix will not be possible initially with green hydrogen alone. And, it is currently expensive versus the other alternatives, and this has to be 1. sold to the public (read the BTL comments in the Daily Mail to get a feel as to how resistant the majority of their readership is to Climate Change and, more importantly, paying for it) and 2. sold to an equally skeptical (downright belligerent) Conservative MPS, including a number of the Cabinet.
What I would like to see, and I think this will happen (perhaps later in the year) is a roadmap outlining an increasing amount of green hydrogen in the total mix (e.g. 10% by 2030, 25% by 2035 etc.). Although, again, we are dealing with private, for profit companies in the supply chain, so how this is mandated requires careful thought and consideration. Now, whether this will happen is anyone's guess.
But, blaming ITM and GC, in particular, is spectacularly missing the target. The whole of the UK green hydrogen industry can not rest on one man's shoulders ( yes, I recognise that ITM's may be, but that is inextricably linked to UK green hydrogen macro policy). No, our unadulterated ire should be directed at this govt; they, and they alone bear full responsibility. And all our energy should be directed at targeting them in what ever way we can [e.g. we could all forward the recent peer reviewed report that shows that blue hydrogen actually increases greenhouse gas emissions to our MPs and demand a timetable for the introduction of green hydrogen- they will forward to BEIS and they must respond (OK, it will be a standard reply, but the people in BEIS still have to respond)]. That is why your contributions are so valued here, Bilbo - for example, providing the link to Climate Watch; the link to the Northern Transport Strategy paper. I would also exhort people to engage with the links to the public consultations on the gov.uk website I included in an earlier post.

Why?? To what end, for goodness sake? How does this help. How do we even know. I get it, you are frustrated.
But, please, just sell up, invest in a Hydrogen ETF and sleep easy - for your own sake as well as ours

This is worth a look, if only for the links to the Gov consultations.
I would expect ITM to be all over this. Whist it looks like the consultations are directed at business, from a very cursory glance, it does appear that individuals could also participate
https://inspiredenergy.co.uk/the-uks-hydrogen-strategy-heres-what-you-need-to-know/

As an aside, INSE might be worth spending some time researching

Morning Toneman (and others)
To be fair, I think we are on exactly the same page. My fear is that the govt will fudge the CO2 emissions from blue hydrogen as you said. My hope is that they will be called out on that by the scientific community, environmental pressure groups et al as the climate worsens.
You are right in that we are not only dependent on the UK govt, witness the tie-up with Shell in Germany. But, we will be up against other "national champions". I'm certainly not all gloom, but my spirits would certain brighten if the UK govt took a more interventionist approach, rather than "let the market decide".
The news this morning that Hybrit has just delivered the first consignment of "green steel" is hugely encouraging for the sector as a whole, but it should be noted that Hybrit is part owned by the state-owned utility Vattenfall and miner LKAB.

But Bilbo, please, please, please a small request- no Day x, xx. We simply do not know what orders have been received (they are not required to RNS any order and I would not expect them to do so, why on earth would you notify your competitors the state of your order book??) and it serves no useful purpose even if we did know.

Toneman
I don't dispute what you say re the govt, and, trust me, I am absolutely under no illusion as to the (in)competence of this administration. That is why increasing pressure needs to be applied, and is (I don't think they KK and GC were lamenting England's loss to India in the cricket over tea and cakes) and will be.
It would be one hell of a statement building a new 2GW factory, although possibly in the EU (Australia has its own issues at govt level and with the coal lobby). And wouldn't it be lovely if they could "ram it full of orders". If they are struggling to "ram" the first GW factory with orders (maybe they are, I am as much in the dark as I guess you are on that) then it's a huge leap of faith to think they will ram the second, double sized one with orders. But, am loving your confidence.
To be fair, I think the govt does actually recognise the difference between blue and green hydrogen. But, I also think (hope?) they see a major role for hydrogen going forward and are keen to role that out asap, to the extent that green hydrogen would not meet the demand initially, hence why they are promoting blue hydrogen to meet the shortfall, but with the view that green hydrogen will take a bigger and bigger percentage over time [otherwise, they will have to wave goodbye to net zero in 2050, and the other earlier trigger points (2035?)].
For me, this makes sense - but I would want to see a roadmap to get to 100% green hydrogen. Unfortunately, this govt under Johnston's leadership has shown time after time that it has other, (in its view) more important (than climate change) priorities.

Whether we like it or not, the success or failure of ITM (and other world leading companies in this sector, Ceres, AFC, Proton et al) is predominantly in the hands of the UK govt.
We are not selling high end consumer goods. We are selling a system ( Proton Exchange Membrane) to produce a feedstock (hydrogen), where the demand for that feedstock is (currently) limited and can be satisfied by other (again, currently) far cheaper means, i.e. grey hydrogen. Why would a producer of hydrogen (a private or public company who's only concern is the maximization of profit) ever select a means of production where the cost is several times higher? They won't. Bilbo, if you think that all we are lacking is a gung-ho, top class CEO, I'm afraid you are way off the mark and deluding yourself (apologies if that sounds harsh - I do not mean it to).
As we all know, the problem with grey hydrogen production is that it's a major contributor to green house gasses, whereas electrolysis provides hydrogen in a carbon free way. This is where the govt needs to step in. They need to incentivize (carbon tax?), coerce or do what ever to encourage/force the displacement of grey hydrogen with green hydrogen. This is why government engagement is absolutely vital. Having the head of BEIS open the factory is absolutely key; this is the right person who needs to be influenced. What is required is a clear roadmap, with detailed timelines, outlining the uptake of green hydrogen (either in % terms, or in absolute terms). Then, and only, then will the orders come in. But, once that happens, the sky is the limit as, 1. the cost of green hydrogen will become much more competitive over time; 2. the market for hydrogen will explode, notably as a replacement for natural gas.
There will, of course, be competitors, China included - that is why the govt must not squander the first mover advantage that ITM has given them. It could build a significant hydrogen economy. with huge export potential.
The question is - how much faith can you put in Johnston and his merry (ministers) men and women to deliver? Success or failure will come down to political choices, and competence v incompetence. Banging on about marketing, price levels, new CEO will not make a jot of difference - at this time, later, much later, maybe.
A small suggestion - if one believes that a green hydrogen economy will be inevitable (I guess all of us here, or we would not be invested in ITM), the safest way to monetarize that view would be to sell up all stocks one owns in the hydrogen sector and reinvest in the L & G Hydrogen ETF. Much less stress. I really should do it myself, but sadly find it impossible to follow my own (I hope, sensible) advice.

Not sure it will, Val.
But, it might be for tax planning purposes. It should qualify as a capital gain for PE and accordingly be taxed at 20%, or possibly 10% if entrepreneurs relief is available. So rather than paying a high salary to begin with, it is structured this way to avoid higher rate tax and NI, both employee's and employer's? Just a thought.

Agree (almost) entirely, Trader87, certainly with the sentiment. I agree wholeheartedly that ITM has a significant advantage in first mover advantage ("That being said we have a massive advantage of first up best dressed"), but I do not think it will be squandered by overzealous caution. I suspect that they are going balls out to convert the pipeline into finished goods and extending the future pipeline.
But, what will inevitably be the roadblock is govt inertia and connivance with the fossil fuel lobby - to understand the extent of the problem, take a look at the recent WWF report, as reported below, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/12/uk-spending-far-more-on-polluting-policies-than-green-ones-wwf
In the longer run, reality will catch up with (even this) govt, and they will have to become more pro-active to reach net-zero 2050 - see the peer reviewed report in the Energy & Science Engineering reported in this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/12/uk-replace-fossil-gas-blue-hydrogen-backfire-emissions

The problem is, while Johnston procrastinates, fiddles and spouts meaningless three-word soundbites, Rome burns. And ITM, currently a world leading company loses its dominant position. Painful for us shareholders, but also for UK plc - another opportunity thrown away by a feckless govt.
Hopefully, my lack of faith in Johnston and his govt is entirely misplaced, and the Hydrogen Report will outline in detail a credible plan for transition to a green hydrogen economy.
As such, I now see this as a very binary investment - 1. nothing of substance in the Report, share price gets hammered and will reverse to low 300's or lower; 2. detailed timeline for adoption of green hydrogen, share price very quickly hitting previous highs of 700p+, and then some more, and the UK's lead in the new hydrogen economy will be secured (other companies, Ceres, AFC, Proton, JMAT will all be beneficiaries as well). But, of course, what do I know - it could stay doddling around the 400p mark, regardless of the content of the Report, I just don't think that is very likely.
Even if EM has a "Damascus" moment, and GC is replaced by EM - it will make no difference to the outcome at all.

Larryh, good points. I would add to your issues concerning BEV the problem of battery life degradation over time, carbon imprint in manufacture of batteries in the first instance, and access to REM over time at an affordable cost.
But, to make hydrogen a reality for cars (and I'm not fully convinced this is the route we should be taking, replacing natural gas seems an easier win) will need govt intervention. We are in a classic chicken and egg situation - no one will buy an hydrogen car until there is an infrastructure of filling stations in place; no private company will commit to building that infrastructure until they are confident that there will be uptake of hevs.
This is where govt can and must take a lead. For example, already a number of bus services are using hydrogen powered buses, so require that all new buses are hydrogen powered. Then, open up the refueling stations to early adopters of hevs. Require the major haulage companies to replace aging diesel HGVs with hydrogen vehicles. Incentivize Shell/BP et al to include hydrogen refueling stations on (selected) forecourts - it will not require universal coverage on Day One, but as momentum builds, govt involvement will reduce.
I fundamentally believe that the calculation (bet) investors are making with ITM, and other hydrogen companies, is that government(s) has a long-term vision for an hydrogen based economy, with a medium goal that it will be green hydrogen and a road map starting from today as to how to get there. Success or failure is (virtually) entirely in their hands. Sadly - as firstly, I am heavily invested, secondly, think it is the right (only viable) thing to do to get to net-zero asap, and thirdly, it will kill our global leadership in this area (a criminal act by any govt) - I think we will be disappointed. We shall see soon, the govt's hydrogen paper will be released soon.
Sorry, Doli, but I can't agree - getting the ITM logo out there will have limited to no material effect at all. People who will be making the buying decisions already know all about ITM.

Maybe. I understand the frustration. But, that is not necessarily the CEO's sole role. Could achieve similar results by investing in a very strong marketing and sales director, and maybe ITM have. Personally, I suspect what is really, really critical to orders going forward is government(s) support, with a well thought out road map to a functioning hydrogen economy. ITM are not the only hydrogen company to see share price weakness (take a look at NEL's share price performance, for example) and L & G's Hydrogen ETF is down circa 20% since its inception in February.
We have the UK hydrogen paper due to be published in the next few days/weeks (sorry, have lost track of exact timing, given all the delays to date). This could make or break the UK hydrogen industry.
I would caution expecting too much, sadly. The UK is extremely well positioned to take advantage of its current lead in the hydrogen economy with a number of best in class companies (I would include ITM, Ceres and AFC in those), but I suspect that the paper will disappoint; I have very little faith in this govt and even less in Johnson (just look at how the UK diagnostics companies have been treated to combat COVID).
Orders will come if, and only if, governments support is forthcoming. Not necessarily in funding, but in regulation. For example, a roadmap to (green) hydrogen replacing natural gas (with a target of 20% by 2025, increasing by 10% every year and made up by say, 10% green, rising by 10% every year thereafter), just as we have with the phasing out of ICE cars. Boiler manufactures are already able to make hydrogen ready boilers, at the same cost as traditional boilers, and able to switch from gas to hydrogen with a simple modification, and are actually pushing hard for these to be legally mandated. Instead, I rather suspect that the govt will "kick the can down the road" and let the "market decide" whether to go down this route or the heat pump route.
Rather than talk of replacing the CEO (which I believe will not make a jot of difference), ITM should be pushing very hard with other hydrogen centric companies to promote the hydrogen economy at govt level. A trade body, unashamedly pro-actively lobbying politicians, reporters, govt officials on a continuous and vocal basis will get better results in the long run than just dumping the CEO.
All in my VHO.

Daz: Thanks Rocky, I have already started taking profits from AFC and divested into Eqtec and PHE, makes me feel much better like yesterday when AFC was down 4% for no real reason and PHE finished up 10%. You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

Today, PHE down 6.15%, AFC up 3.28%!!
I'm afraid "them is the markets". What were you saying, "You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time"!!
Maybe a better alternative would be to liquidate your hydrogen related stocks and invest in one of the (recently listed) hydrogen ETFs? Much less volatility (hopefully) and no exposure to a single stock or two. AFC or PHE could both do stonkingly well, or one do well and the other fail, or both fail. Very difficult to know how exactly the future will pan out (we can only make "educated" guesses). But, either way, expect to be in for the long haul we should all be cognisant that the hydrogen economy will only take off if it gets government backing (i.e. can we really trust in Johnson's mantra of "building back better, building back green"?

Hi Haggis
Yep, so that will help, for sure, along with greater II participation, a move to the order-driven market (Sets), and improving liquidity that comes with a growing Mrk Cap. Inclusion in an ETF can be a very powerful force for the good, but it can also act as a destabilizer, c.f. for small, illiquid stocks, which is where we are now, although, hopefully, for not much longer.

https://www.6pr.com.au/atco-learning-about-renewable-hydrogen/

WA will be a big market for "renewable" (green) hydrogen. Given the proposed trade agreement, ITM should be looking at this very closely.