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.
Thanks for the info guys, appreciated.
I guess in the meantime I'll be buying some more, considering the SP is offering us a gift
Agree, great catalyst, perfect starting point, not catastrophic if we have issues.
I sort of go along with that 13thmonkey but Uskmouth is the ultimate game changer as the site is wholly owned by SAE so they will be owner operators if you like. Elsewhere and it can only be done on a consultancy type basis I would have thought apart from supplying the fuel pellets of course which, I hasten to add, will be a lucrative business in it's own right. Uskmouth though would act as the catalyst for other defunct coal powered sites the world over. Profits of which can be utilised to drive the innovation & implementation of a number of tidal projects. A real global gamechanger for the company that is likely to superinflate the SP much quicker and that's why it's so important to us.
Even the worst case scenario only has us doing this somewhere else, it'll be a when not if it is implemented.
My thoughts are a company like RPS would not have taken this on unless they are convinced they have all the correct information from SUP and also highly likely to be able to get a permit.
I also remember TC saying the trials on subcoal exceeded there expectations
Silentalker, I too read the NRW response and whilst there is no doubt that NRW want to classify the application as a new plant (and why wouldn't they) as this brings into play a number of additional environmental impact legislatives I don't believe SAE have fudged any previous numbers. NRW pay reference to the detail SAE previously included and simply require the same level of detail. I think, certainly a new plant will bring about further challenges in terms of the markers they need to hit but I for one believe SAE & it's partners are up to the job. Since the application was initially presented, they have advanced the technology. The Mitsubishi burners for example are far more efficient than previously presented. So strides are being made. What I think, (For what it's worth) is that NRW want to be in the strongest possible position to answer any potential criticism from any green activists or indeed allay any fears any local people or businesses might have once the EP has been granted during the accompanying consultation process. What better way to do this than to be able to explain the site meets all current markers environmently & otherwise. I might well be ignorant of the matter at hand and I always believe in taking a cautious approach like you but I feel sure SAE will look into meeting those requirements and with haste. They appear to be going about it the right way by employing the right consultants/organisations to help them. This ought to provide us with an element of reassurance I guess. For the record, knowing all this, I still went ahead and purchased an additional 50k of shares yesterday despite my own cautious nature!
Thanks OT, that's a good read. I find this bit encouraging:
"Where BAT-AELs cannot be met, you will need to request a derogation. This would need to be demonstrated by the operator in their response. To do this, you must provide sufficient technical and commercial information to demonstrate that achieving that BAT-AEL would lead to costs that are disproportionately high, compared with environmental benefits because of one or more of:
the geographical location of your installation
the local environmental conditions around your installation"
So far they haven't even discussed the possibility of derogation (unless I missed something?) . Certainly, it seems like even if they can't meet the standards NRW are asking for (which they may be able to anyway), there are other options they could explore to get the permit. Shares are so cheap at the moment I might just buy some more on Monday anyway...
Silent talker have a read of this
https://www.circularonline.co.uk/features/go-the-limit/
It was written by RPS group who have advised SUP throughout the process .
G-Man11, oldtramp is right. I suspect, judging by previous responses, the Air Quality Habitats Impact response will be forwarded within the next couple of weeks. There will almost certainly be some additional throw backs in terms of the fire safety responses but this is to be expected but nevertheless, NRW have committed to a judgement by the end of Q4 this year provided they receive all the responses they require & in good time of course. The sooner this matter be concluded the better for all concerned. It should be noted, however, that this is a very large & complex matter, indeed, unique and it feels like both parties are learning as they go along hence the time it is taking. Absolutely nothing to be unduly worried about as I am reliably informed that matters are very much going according to plan. In terms of the application itself, SAE must attain a number of milestones before they are able to reach financial close. Arguably, the most important and most difficult of which is the Environmental permit. (EP) Should this be forthcoming at the end of Dec (and we trust it will) we then submit a detailed planning application for such matters as the fuel pellet storage facilities. (Silos) As the site is deemed "brownfield" this element should be more of a formality. This is scheduled for Qtr 1 2021. To get to this point though and as mentioned, we must obtain the EP. This would be fantastic news for the company/ key stakeholders not to mention any investors such as ourselves. On any positive RNS here one would expect the SP to shoot up then investors have a decision to make. I guess this is the gamble each & everyone of us/whom considering an investment in SAE makes. That's why research is key. No better forum than this for that! Sorry to go on but aware other potential investors may read our share chat and just wanted to map out were we are in terms of were we are right now with Uskmouth notwithstanding tidal. An altogether different matter!
I'd have a look at the correspondence (https://publicregister.naturalresources.wales/Search/Results?SearchTerm=PAN-008534) dated 20/10/20 - it sounds like we could have quite a bit longer to wait I'm afraid. Consider this bit:
"We consider it likely that this will involve your air quality modelling consultants to re-calculate and map the magnitude of exceedences of PC and PEC, and your ecologist, to consider in detail the likely impact of the modelled emissions/pollutant concentrations."
So NRW are saying that they think SAE need to go back to consultants and ecologists and do some of the modelling again.
To be honest I'm getting a little nervous re-reading that email. For example, here:
"We have provided some detailed information above as to where we consider that the information provided in the Schedule 5 response does not meet these requirements, but cannot advise you on your application. We note the level of detail in your original application in respect of these matters (Appendix H sub-appendix C, and Appendix L) and consider that for a response to be satisfactory, it would need to be of comparable detail and follow the guidance/standards identified in those initial submissions, in respect of the key “new” issue of Nutrient Nitrogen Deposition in exceedance of the critical load."
That sounds to me like when SAE were told by NRW that they would have to meet the BAT-AELs for a new plant rather than an old one, and consequently had to revise down their estimations of environmental impact, they might have fudged the numbers slightly. Possibly I'm reading far too much into it , but I am now worried that SAE can't actually meet the BAT-AELs and are trying to get one past NRW. I haven't sold my existing shares yet but I'm slightly hesitant to buy more at the moment (or on Monday) even though the share price is a bargain right now.
As always, if anyone has any expertise on the issues Dr Poole discusses in that correspondence I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Gman11 NRW asked for some further information on Q9 Air quality habitats impacts
Guess we should be replying to the questions soon
have planning sorted for Uskmouth? Surely we must be close to satisfying all of NRW concerns now