We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Hi Wolves and Stokey,
Good discussion and I tend to agree with your rationale Wolves. If I were the first customer it makes total sense to build into the contract priority on future builds. This may well be where the eleven sites comes in or there may be additional clauses in any contract. Having thought about when I would release the next update it seems reasonable to assume this could be after the holidays.
With regards to your point on previous RNS Stokey there was something I recall but would need to do some digging.
Wolveshaveeyes - In relation to your 23.10 post I think that Peel already have first rights as I recall a RNS stating that there is an agreement with a customer that they would provide £500,000 in exchange for being given priority in ordering units. The customer was never named. I will be corrected if I am wrong on the details. If that is correct then none of the waste management companies will get an advantage as they would all have to wait for the Peel order to be filled first.
Stokey12
I am aware of the breakdown that DR provided to your question at the AGM. My point is that IMHO PHE is unlikely to be able to satisfy the demand once the scaled up plant has been commercially proven. For this reason PHE may have to prioritise which customer(s) orders will be fulfilled first.
If I was negotiating a contract for the first plant then I would insist on having priority options for as many subsequent plant that my company could reasonably operate (risk=reward). This pushes the remaining interested parties to further down the queue.
Based on this, the company that takes the risk of a successful first plant may then be able to obtain a competitive advantage in negotiating subsequent waste disposal contracts with councils as they would be obtaining income streams not readily available to their competitors (at that time).
IMHO £7m is a fairly small amount of money for a large WM company to invest whilst the potential reward by negotiating priority options on additional operational plants could be massive.
Now taking this line of thinking one stage further, maybe strategically having a reasonable stake in PHE shares provides corporate opportunities and influence.
Whilst I acknowledge that the share price may only increase significantly once the new plant has been proven, alternatively, there may be a bigger picture which the larger WM companies may need to factor in. Can they afford to dither? What will happen to their business model if a competitor company takes the initial investment risk and is successful with some form of tie in agreement?
The above is what I was trying to find out other board members opinions on. Is this reasonable, where are the flaws in my thinking?
Wolves
Hi DW, Ref your 21.25 post who was that directed at please. My posts were all around the number of hours which has been stated. I am fully aware of the DNV certification. GLAH
I was referring to the number hours of running which a poster keeps bringing up and nobody else, including people with insurance experience have ever heard of. The company themselves have never even quoted it. So it seems a particular poster knows more than everybody else about what is required. All seems a bit strange don't you think. I have the poster in question on filter so I can only see responses which are clogging up the board. IMHO it is designed to mislead.
sharesport - in relation to your 17.18 post can you please confirm what it refers to.
Have the company ever mentioned any of this. I think you will find the answer is no.
rooky/Desertwolfch - In your experience would a EPC wrap resolve the issue which has exercised 98889. I think there was talk of such a thing being done.
Hi Desertwolfch,
I worked for 5 years for an insurance company selling every type of insurance cover possible, except marine and aviation. I also worked as an independent broker for several years and I fully agree with your reply to 98889.
Exactly as you said, The statement of feasability is already archived by DNV-GL and also a basic part of any insurance which MIGHT cover the projects. why MIGHT, why are you not sure as you worked inside insurance company. Why can't you say can/shall.
I knew the DNV GL will be bring up to answer this.
When you build a plant or factory, you need an insurance.
The insurer will make a series of request or Question and looking for respond with supporting evidence:
feedstock type amount frequency where,
fire prevention system, .how the building react, firehydrant, etc
No of years Plant operation
environment impact/measurement that relevant to ea
Plant and Equipment operation details/limit, now DMG is a new invented , how do you satisfy the insurer, how they know the 35tpdDMG will be problem free , you need to look from insurer angle and not what you think. Base line is, if you are the insurer, how can you be confident that 35tpdDMG will not blowup and you ended paying to rebuild the 7m or 11m plant plus any income lost during therebuild
EPC contractor insurance are those X million to third party, Y million to.... Z million to... different insurance
98889 - You have previously said that no insurance company will provide insurance unless 8000 hours of trouble free use. In order for me to do what you suggested in your 11.12 post I need to know what type of insurance I am searching for.
That is not relevant to 8000hours of problem free proven.
Do you dare to use a medicine that has not been fully tested with human
98889 - In relation to your 11.12 post can you please clarify the type of insurance you are referring to is it product insurance or project finance insurance or anoter type of insurance?
98889 - What DR's experience is is relevant as it goes to whether what I say is credible. I rely on what he says to inform my views that is quite reasonable as I cannot be expected to have knowledge of every area. I was at the AGM so I was able to judge whether DR is trustworthy from listening to him.
Hi Sharesport,
unsubstantiated' claims regarding 8000 hrs.
It is clearly you are not in the relevant Industry.
Google the insurance requirements,
This is off track again. ...
DR experience is not your experience, and your experience related to the things you said here.
DR didn't say anything over here, just us.
98889 - My comment in my 08.48 post about waste management companies not waiting for the completion of 8000 hours of trouble free operation is based on comments made by DR who is an engineer with 35 years of experience in the field.
You really have noidea on something that you try to dream about. It is clearly you have not, and never, worked/involved in the relevant Industry.
Hi Stokey, I am taking queues from DR all day and all night as opposed to any 'unsubstantiated' claims regarding 8000 hrs. I think the company experts might just kbow what they are doing. GLAH
Wolveshaveeyes - In relation to your 21.57 post of yesterday I checked my notes of the AGM and in answer to my question DR gave a breakdown of the 24 domestic customers. 8 were described as blue chip recyclers and 6 were described as independent recyclers. That means that the majority of the domestic customers are likely to be waste management companies. It would seem therefore that the waste management companies would prefer to be custmers than investors. The most likely reason for preferring to be a customer is the approximate one third saving they will make on landfill charges.
I would disagree with 98889's 07.07 post I do not think they will wait for this 8000 hours of trouble free operation before ordering DMG units as the cost savings to them are likely to offset the risk of the DMG unit not working as promised.
Competency is really worrying
This planning permission seems to be taking forever, then it still needs financing... loads of jam tomorrow but a bit of progress today would be nice.
None WM company in the uk is believing DMG. None. Unless 8000hrs problem free operation proven. So, as usual, need the 1st one to use it and then wait for 1year.
WM company need not to choose to believe in DMG.
Without DMG, all of them can business as usual. So, why risk 7 to 11million.
After someone else trial the DMG for 1 year, they may start to jump in, depending on demand at the time.
So, never needed to be in a hurry. If the market in the uk is so big, then there are plenty of business opportunity 2 years later. Lets someone else to be THE Guinea Pig.