Member Info for Brydo

Thanks @TRBob. Yeah, it was a good wee report & there were some interesting & optimistic sounding comments in there from Ampeak.

Here's to Ampeak, Orbital & everyone else really ramping up the deployment of tidal turbine technology... hopefully it will be a big part in the energy mix and the NetZero push.

I mean for those naysayers who say the sun doesn't always shine & that wind isn't consistent enough either, argue against an utterly predictable (way, way, way into the future), day/night, summer/winter, spring/autumn, utterly renewable & largely untapped energy resource. One that has no visual or land use concern either...the fossil fuels would need to work very hard to make any objections garner popularity in our communities.

Scalability & the connected cost curve is all that's needed to push it to the forefront of our energy mix...some years of financial support for a lifetime of cheaper, greener, predictable, dependable & better securitized energy. Why would any government not fully rally behind the technology? Especially so when the world leaders in the technology are based in your own backyard & jurisdiction.

I was thrilled to see DW News covering the MeyGen tidal array so prominently in their tidal power report on YouTube

https://youtu.be/AZD3zQT_F40?si=8gz-0NAONTs49XPu

Yeah, having skin in the game may seem to some a confirmation of bias but like yourself, I see the opportunity as one which is so utterly achievable in the here & now & so commonsense that it is surely utterly negligent of the UK government not to fully support its expedient scaling up.

Predicatable, reliable renewable energy with the means of both realtime grid supply & potential battery storage, what is not to love about it?!

Costs will certainly tumble as scale of deployment increases & supply chains will become ever more assured & dependable.

Delaying the scaling up of this proven, efficient & world leading technology will only serve to self-harm the industry & afford other nations the chance to instead take position at the vanguard of this industry & to benefit from UK inaction.

The UK government talk about their desire to champion companies whom present attractive world leading technologies, whom can attract investment & become rising stars of the stock market. They seek for UK investors to support growth of UK companies through investing & yet here is a company so massively undervalued at present, that with appropriate support presents a viable breakout investment opportunity. Oh, and all the whilst it ticks off the desire for clean, green, renewable energy supply that only help achieve national security & climate targets. Why would they largely ignore the opportunity & instead throw huge sums of economic support to nuclear projects that are at best decades from realisation & which are always set to be one of the most expensive methods of supplying energy?! It really doesn't make sense to me.

As SAE, I bought in purely on the basis of supporting the Scottish tidal industry that was a visionary from the outset. It was well conceived & was meeting milestones. The pellet incinerator project was never greatly of interest to me but it did seem to attract investors. Since then however, the BESS pivot was genuinely a brilliant bit of business & my appetite has only ever grown for the business. Now as Ampeak Energy, with a track record of agility & foresight, the case for investment seems more solid than ever... especially at its current valuation.

The Scottish government had always been very supportive and it always seems that the UK government are always on the verge of providing the kind of support that could turbocharge the company & the entire industry...but much like nuclear fusion, or true solid state batteries, appropriate UK government support always seems to be always Xyrs away. Like a carrot on a stick.

It is frustrating for sure, but such is the skill of the team that I am hopeful they will utilise the two BESS developments to self-fund gradual rollouts of tidal turbines until such times as econonomies of scale make it genuinely unrequiring of subsidy. It would just be far easier if the UK government woke up to the incredible opportunity that stares them straight in the face

Davey. it was. It was perfectly reasonable.

Where has this statement originated from, or should I say, from whom?

Yeah, that is exactly what I said.

I backed your assertion up because Surin appeared to have misread the 2021 statement.

I remember well the concern about GFG debts and how it might effect SAE, so I remember being very relieved by that absolute denial of their being any group membership.

To reiterate:

“SAE also wishes to clarify again that, as announced on 7 April 2021, SAE is an independent company whose shares are admitted to trading on AIM and is is not a member of the GFG Alliance.”

Unequivocally, the company is NOT part of the GFG Alliance.

GFG Alliance may have a shareholding, though they could well have reduced or even exited from their SAE holding in the 4yrs that have passed since that statement.

The most important part in regards answering the question that was posed, is as follows;

“SAE also wishes to clarify again that, as announced on 7 April 2021, SAE is an independent company whose shares are admitted to trading on AIM and is not a member of the GFG Alliance.”

Unequivocally, the company is NOT part of the GFG Alliance.

So, it seems to me that the level of price volatility has risen again in recent weeks, after a (by SAE standards) very settled & consolidatory period. Talking of volatility...

There's nothing wrong with reading these threads whilst sitting wat back in the shadows - not everyone feels compelled, or perhaps equipped, to add their tuppence to the discourse.

When people do eventually break from cover, when they do decide it's time to announce their arrival, surely they should be mindful of adding value, not increasing volume.

Seems Stuart (Yorkston) is in fact YOrke926 It seems they are one of the same.

When they break cover, I and I guess many others, look out for alterior motives. Wary, I look for any potentially concealed red flags but just sometimes people just come on out waving theirs loudly & proudly as it seems has Stuart/YOrke.

It's certainly not trust inducing to come screaming into a chat, outing dual accounts, being unable to recall which one they posted under, which they should reply via, to appear quite so entitled & to be so damn confrontational.

I myself, don't ever feel too inclined to comment, I have done so only once in the past but I often pause to wonder quite what the motive for that type of sudden arrival & outburst of negative sentiment, really is. I guess there's some benefit in it for somebody, damned if I know quite what that would be however.

Through that prism, I have always been deeply suspicious of any confrontational contributors & of any overly bullish "to the moon", or conversely despairingly negative type commentary.

Though it just seems implausibly small scale & ineffective, I am always wary of people that for whatever reason seem set on agitating in amongst investment communities.

Putting aside any personal feelings I have on the matter & boy do I have them, it seems the recent announcement of partnering with a firm at Uskmouth BESS should have been good news & one might have expected an upward trend over the near term. The fact that the company they chose to partner with was an Israeli firm, that seemed to coincide with more downward pressure on the share price. Can we conclude that there are widespread reservations about doing business with Israeli firms? Is it possible that it has severe negative implications should the UK & the international community be forced to sanction Israel? Energy is also a national security matter...it could stand to reason that any reservations be multiplied in effect because of the criticality of the matter, it's not just a soft consumer product.

So, could this partnership have been a terrible own goal?