Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. Watch the video 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.
Evening gents the Newport planning committee can be viewed live on Wednesday starting at 10am.
Unfortunately I won’t be able to see it if anyone else watches it would much appreciate if the outcome could be posted.
Many thanks OT
Link
https://democracy.newport.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=132&MId=8421&Ver=4&LLL=0
It has been communicated before
Https://www.offshore-energy.biz/proteus-marine-recovers-tidal-energy-turbine-from-japanese-waters/
Good to see the interest is still there and not just at MYGEN site
Thank you. Let's see if we get an answer..
Regarding MeyGen.. yes indeed. I admit that I can't wait to hear how SAE is going to pull this off. By that I mean if this can be financed without taking on too much additional debt.. that being said.. it'll also be insanely interesting to see how much a turbine will cost and, perhaps most importantly, whether or not and by how much the price falls.
All the studies and predictions need proof. If SAE can deliver, governmental funding will come much easier.
It's general construction so hopefully this relates to the meeting Tmoz and if accepted which should be a no trainer then works can start and more news can filter through about BESS.
SAE really need to monopolize this situation and get the traction during the period when National Grid restrictions and red tape is reduced to incentivize more connections.
We also need more news on Meygen.
Not had a reply yet from my emails and will give it till the end of the week. At that point I may consider other options in order to get an understanding of what is happening on behalf of investors.
The Meygen project regarding private investment also needs to be clarified from the last CFD.
Https://marine.gov.scot/sites/default/files/eia_screening_report_redacted_redacted.pdf
FYI above is a link to “MeyGen Tidal Array - EIA Screening Report”
MT and all frequent followers -
something I think might play a factor in the long term value / attractiveness to investors may be whether the planning request to install the longer diameter turbines gets signed off. (I think it’s currently undergoing EIA Review - happy to be corrected on this!)
I’m hoping … the longer turbine diameter should increase output and reduce the amount of turbines required /reduce installation costs and thereby reduce maintenance costs.
Thereby make it more economically viable and reduce the time to implement the array. Time will tell but I think the EIA could be up to 12 months before we find out the result (keeping my ears and eyes open for news …).
If anyone knows any more info - please do correct me!
Keen to hear people’s thoughts on this
I keep getting torn apart. One day I get optimistic, on another something happens that raises doubts.
I think it's fair to be skeptical given how the past few years went..
It's always mixed signals. Selling ATES, winning CfD. Losing pellets, getting BESS. Seeing an insider buy, dilution follows..
SAE keeps playing with me 😅
I just hope that 2024 will finally be the year where we can recover and see a small but steady upward trend in valuation.
The next CfD round and whether or not we get a larger budget this time will also set the tone.
IMO very important not to talk too much about LCOE. Onshore wind has been cheaper than everything for a long time and got banned by Tories for thanks. Meanwhile nuclear is a regular overbudget, delayed white elephant and see how they chuck cash at it. Same for offshore wind... got its prices down nicely but still got screwed when it needed some support in face of rate hikes and inflation in material costs. No such problems with the oil & gas boys when they need a favour, because they made sure the political terrain was made for them, with no concern about the facts.
Very true that predictable tidal grid balancing is a fantastic asset in its own right, but UK supply chain, UK success story, Westminster not killing Scottish industry, are all just as valuable arguments, maybe even more so.
(Obviously this doesn't change that LCOE is definitely going fast in the right direction).
Good luck for 2024 everyone.
Is this latest news? The date states 5th December, 2023.
Lots going on at Uskmouth End of Jan
https://www.nusc.co.uk/Nuscwp/index.php/2023/12/05/power-station-restricted-access/
You're welcome.
Imo the most important thing here is that LCOE must not be the only metric to look at as it's simply not telling the full story.
Wind and solar have the disadvantage of being unpredictable and therefore require additional considerations. Considerations that aren't necessary for tidal and which justify a higher LCOE. LACE (levelized avoided cost of energy) must be taken into account as well.
** Next Phase(s) of MeyGen
Thanks for this MT… good to see some clear cut numbers. Lot of moving parts to hit that goal. But those numbers will be important assessing performance in the future years.
Be interesting to see who the next UK government will be. Could be pivotal to any further domestic subsidies, CFDs and I’m also keen on seeing if the speeding up on connections to National Grid will help move BESS projects up the queue.
Back to the UK elections, it’s likely whoever wins un Autumn 24 will preside over the period which the first phase of MeyGen goes into production.
In for the long term here … Good Luck All.
From the report (https://ore.catapult.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/AI-paper-tidal-stream-benefits-to-the-wider-energy-system-v1.12.pdf):
"The breakeven LCOE of tidal stream was found to be £49-55/MWh, depending on the capacity installed. Below this level, tidal stream offers cost benefits to the grid and will displace other renewables (for example offshore wind and biomass with CCS). Above this level, tidal stream adds cost to the energy system when compared to the cost-optimised scenario with no tidal stream."
and:
"How does this align with cost projections?
Arguably the main finding from this study is the £49-55/MWh breakeven tidal stream LCOE by 2050. While certain aspects of the tidal technology could warrant a cost premium (for example the high predictability), from a purely economic perspective this is the level that the tidal technology must reach to start to reduce the costs of the overall energy system.
So how achievable is this? The current LCOE of tidal stream is in the range £250-300/MWh, depending on the technology and site conditions. This is reflected by the administrative strike price set for AR4, at £211/MWh (2012 currency, £254 in 2021 currency). Greater insight will be gained when the successful bids are announced later this year. The sector has seen rapid cost decrease in the last five years, even without revenue support. LCOE in 2015 was estimated at $440/MWh by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) [11], equivalent to £380/MWh in 2021 currency. From 2015 to 2022 this implies a 33% LCOE reduction, a significant amount despite only a handful of turbine installations and one multi-MW array with government revenue support (Meygen, a 6MW project). Projections by Coles et al. estimate that tidal stream could dip below £150/MWh by 2030 if it keeps on its current cost reduction trajectory (assuming a learning rate of 17%) and the 124 MW of capacity that is currently eligible to bid into subsidy support auctions is installed [12]. Projections by ORE Catapult have estimated that tidal stream could reach £90/MWh by the time 1GW has been installed, which could be achieved by the early 2030s if upcoming projects can capitalise on the strong sector headwinds at present."
There's still a long way to go.
With BESS we should see a re-valuation as well as with concrete plans/steps for the next MeyGen phase.
If this will be enough for most of us to break even remains a an open question.
SAEs market cap is currently equal to its book value. Selling SAE as is, without any goodwill, gets us £10m. Debt and very little revenue keeping us down there.
Our gasoline remains governmental funding. Like it or not. Without it SAE cannot really grow its revenue. Uskmouth will never be enough to expand MeyGen.
Until the company can organically grow its revenue, without governmental help, it'll remain a tough place to put your money.
So for me unlike some others on here I am not convinced in the slightest that we are going to see the light at the end of the tunnel when we hear very little from the guy steering the company.
Maybe next week may bring some good news but after that then what.
Remember the RNSs...
In the annual results they stated giving value to investors.
So where is the value.
From July 2021 from.Mr Reid..
I'm pleased to announce the second edition of the SAE monthly review. We've made some important announcements this month which have been crucial to supporting the overall delivery of our projects
You can read more here:
ow.ly/Ev7k50FbmoN
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. It's always good to hear other's too and not just ones own thoughts 😅
I certainly agree that Reid did not inherit a lot to work with.
I'm also not against this sort if incentives. Quite the opposite.
I just wished that for once we, existing investors, get considered first. A higher strike price or at least tying these options to some kind of performance metrics would be enough. Something along the lines: has delivered additional 200MW at MeyGen until X.
Anything that ensures we all see some returns and not just those with an average of 1.15p ..
Evening Mr T
Regarding grants I am sitting on the fence at the moment.
When Graham Reid took over he inherited nothing but debt no credit line a large workforce and very little turnover.
“IF” the board has managed or manages to turn that around and indeed the Market cap and SP then he will become hot property for many other companies and SAE will do well to keep him.
With out a doubt it could also go the opposite way so waiting to see what happens this year.
Looking forward to next week with planning and possibly news on what deal the company has agreed with Enso energy which I hope will be the catalyst for the above.
Have a pleasant weekend chaps 👍
Thanks OT.
May I ask you.. what is your opinion on those grants? I know you would have shared your thoughts if you wanted to, but I'm curious.
Again: Seeing them grant themselves bonuses that we have to pay for at the lowest price ever recorded in the history of the company does not feel appropriate to me. Especially since these grants end up being 15% of the company. Imo last year's grant was already a leap of faith. Providing such a ridiculously low strike-price may primarily motivate management so sell their shares asap. I'd much rather see them successfully increase the value of the company first, and then collect their reward instead of providing them these kinds of bonuses in the current setting..
> The general role of thumb under the circumstances is that they would not be allowed to sell them for at least one year.
The shares of their last grant vest over the next three years iirc.
> What I'm struggling to understand is if there are a few of us here with a few hundred k of shares and we've all been averaging down. Why has this SP remained stagnant?
This is not easy to answer. There's many reason why the share price would go down. One of them is good old dilution. Over the past years, said management has had many grants. I don't know how big those were but the last two make up 15% of the companies shared issued.
Now, as these shares vest, they are offered to the market and somebody, don't ask me who, buys them. Bear in mind, that those shares offered are already going to be cheaper. Why? Because that's how shares work of course. The more shares there are, the less a single share is worth.
In other words: Whenever one of us averages down, we are, among other things, paying for these grants/bonuses. Literally paying for part of management's salaries which is why these particularly large grants are a thorn in my eye.
Another big factor then is, of course, demand and supply. Simple as that. If people sell shares, they name a price, and they'll always ask for as much as they can. However, they can only ask for so much somebody is willing to pay. A simple market.
> Do we think these shares are kept artificially low for some reason?
Maybe..? If I was management and had some good news to share, then I'd wait until I have my grants - for example. I am not accusing current management of doing that, because it is illegal, but there is some control that it in the grey zone.
The BESS planning committe meets on Wednesday, 10th January, 2024 10.00 am. Just a few days after management has granted themselves a huge chunk of shares.
Coincidence? Maybe? Did they have any control or say over this? I don't know. Also maybe.
But even if not: The company has performed abysmal on the stock market so far. Leaving every single one deep red. So.. is it appropriate to grant management a huge amount of shares in this case? Based on what performance? Did we see an increment in revenue (not couting the one-time payment of course)? Did we see any value increment? All we saw was selling assets. ATES, Uskmouth..
Did they do a good job? I don't know. Maybe. Do I feel that the grant last year should suffice? Absolutely. Am I convinced that another big grant is appropriate? Not so much.. all I am afraid now is that they sell their options the moment they vest because it's not unlikely that SAE might see a rise in valuation.
Again: It is us existing investors who pay for these grants. It is our money. Yours and mine. It is my opinion, that we have paid enough already and that it's time that we see some returns, or at least break even, before management grants themselves new shares at the (almost) lowest price ever recorded in th