Member Info for CF73

Bedex's reasoning makes a great deal of sense to me. If GG are seriously irritated by ZM, as part of a negotiation to move things forward, they could have asked that ZM be moved on. But I see FRR only carrying this out if GG asked in the context of genuine reconciliation and progress. Naturally, if GG were continuing to be obstructive, it wouldn't be necessary or worthwhile for FRR to remove ZM.

Of course, this is IF a) ZM has actually been removed, and if so, IF b) GG had themselves actually requested this.

Happy birthday Chris! Hope you have good'n :-)

----------------

To conclude, there has been a number of deeply connected programmes, each intertwined and interconnected. The transmission infrastructure could only have happened with certain guarantees from both the Mozambican authorities and from the project and its backers (NCCL, CMEC/ Chinese State-State-owned banks)

In turn, this work would have enabled CMEC to progress to SHA TS, confirming their commitment via that 60% stake (which is what happened, in terms of the sequence of events). See:
https://www.investegate.co.uk/ncondezi-energy-ltd--nccl-/rns/sha-term-sheet-signed---nccl-retain-40--equity/202008280700053883X/

We now learn that Mozambique want 1200MW of power out of our Tete project, and not just 300MW. See below Integrated Master Plan, Final Report (Nov 2018), pp.ES-4 to ES-5
https://www.edm.co.mz/en/document/reports/integrated-master-plan-2018-2043

Lastly, I would add, there is not one Coal-to-Power project I can think of that is as far developed/ advanced or as certain as the Ncondezi Power Project.

Whether the markets wants to believe or not, this project is happening. And with c.70% to 75% stock tied down, when the news lands…

Good luck all!

----------------

2. Assurances/ guarantees from the main ‘Backers’ of the Ncondezi Power Project. We would expect that the consortium of donors (again, being Germany, World Bank and Norway) would have wanted guarantees from the project group that, the project would absolutely happen, that the funding had been secured. We would expect that lending/ donor consortium needed to see certain milestones achieved, before reaching Financial Close and committing those funds.

If I were Germany, World Bank and Norway, I wouldn’t committing any funds unless I was assured beyond doubt that the Project and its backers were fully committed (now remember our binding JDA last year).

Is worth remembering that Government initiated tendering processes for constructing this transmission system, have now begun, and that Mozambique and Malawi (thinking about the Transmission Interconnector Line) have both agreed to speed up the process, from tendering to construction.

Sone related links/ evidence:

The Malawi-Mozambique (from Tete to Malawi) Interconnecter Line & Substation reached financial close (costing $127m), funded by Germany, World Bank and Norway:

“The German government is providing 30 million euros (about 35 million US dollars) for the regional interconnection project and to strengthen internal communications along the EDM transmission lines. The World Bank has provided 42 million dollars, and the contribution from the Norwegian government is 24 million dollars, channelled via the World Bank. These three financing agreements became effective as from this month.”

https://allafrica.com/stories/202008030091.html

[And again:]

“The Mozambique-Malawi interconnector attained financial closure and is at construction stage and is expected to be commissioned in 2022.”

https://www.chronicle.co.zw/over-3-500mw-of-power-commissioned-as-sadc-energy-cooperation-pays-off/

----------------

Am certain that in heading towards/ reaching Financial Close, on that Transmission Infrastructure, Germany, World Bank and Norway would have wanted to two sets of assurances/ guarantees:

----------------

1. From Mozambican Government: that the power the Transmission System was designed to carry, domestically/ regionally, and internationally, would be in place and in the required quantity, by the time of commissioning; that there would be no policy or political blockages.

I posted a few weeks back, that this process could be charted. The first link below, is from a Facebook post, Jan 2018:

https://www.facebook.com/eudtomalawi/posts/power-for-malawi-eu-supports-the-mozambique-malawi-inter-connector-with-a-grant-/1981345688805933/

The second, below, is from August 2019, a year ago:

https://furtherafrica.com/2019/08/19/mozambique-malawi-power-interconnection-carried-out-with-german-financial-aid/

So, work towards Transmission has been ongoing. We would not have seen the significance of these at the time.

Importantly, the eagle-eyed LTHs, with good memories, will remember that at one time, during the time of some of those visits, the head guy at EDM (Mozambique’s electricity utility) was a highly-regarded official from the World Bank, who had been seconded for this key period. I guess all of the funding/ donor parties wanted assurances to such a degree, that they felt it necessary to install their own guy! (And he made massive discoveries when he got in, too!)

----------------

As far as I am concerned, we are now heading towards Financial Close with crazy inevitability.

All the major partners and stakeholders know this project is happening. Otherwise, why would Germany, World Bank and Norway pay for transmission infrastructure where there are no other projects in sight? Why would CMEC confirm their 60% stae at this late stage? Why would Moz want 1200MW over the next ten years, from Tete power, according to their Plan?

And so much more!

The challenges facing Coal-to-Power projects to there to see. No AIM attempting to deliver such a project has succeeded or looks like succeeding – excepting Ncondezi/ NCCL.

Why do I think that? Well, LTHs will understand that we are at a late stage in pre-construction development,

- Where CMEC – the Chinese Global Engineering Giant, representing China and their BRI – has just agreed to take a 60% stake in the project (all the more significant given COVID).

- Where Transmission systems and infrastructure (i.e. 400KV Interconnector line and substation), our project will rely upon in the Tete area, has been approved, reaching Financial Close (no-less), with German, World Bank and Norway paying $127m needed.

- Where Mozambique (and Malawi – who we will sell to internationally), have agreed to speed up the work of construction, with Government tendering processes initiated

- Where NCCLs Transmission Study directly supported the above process, leading into the above tendering process (why would NCCL do study that would benefit any other potential power producer? They haven’t! All other proposed projects have ‘fallen away’. We did the study knowing it would be for us!)

- Where Mozambique’s Integrated Power Master Plan (Final Report, Nov 2018), shows very clearly, they are looking for 1200MW to come from our Tete project/coal, where other proposed Power Plants have ‘fallen away’ i.e. All 1200MW from us, coming on line 300MW Unit at a time (2023; 2026; 2029; 2030)

- Where our largest shareholder is the Africa Finance Corporation, the largest African Private Funding Institution, who support infrastructure project of this type across Africa, and who will support with funding construction.

Unlike other projects of this nature, the Ncondezi Coal-to-Power Project has now reached a point of significant certainty and value.

Good luck all!

Once again, what a load of utter flannel.

Won't be responding to you again.

What a load of utter flannel.

To still be in denial, after the supply of such evidence -- one an article, clear enough for me; the other, even clearer, coming from Hanno himself, where he literally says it --- to still be in denial after all that, is extraordinary.

So, there we have it, from Hanno himself:

From 6:03mins - 6:11mins

"Now, important to highlight, that for the subscription price, sometimes referred to as the 'premium'..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sacrEyfPyfk&app=desktop

previous want intended to read:

"...there weren't many [articles] that could provide such an explanation)"

Moon, you have offered no source to substantiate your argument/ viewpoint, not one. I have only just found article (there were meant many that could provide such an explanation). But neverthlesss, I have found it. It is there. Explained well enough with - as far as I am concerned - enough knowledge and expertise.

On the other hand, you want to me to accept your viewpoint, based upon the fact you believe it so, with no corroboration or substantiation.

Much thanks for this. Is appreciated!

DanThePan, no can of worms has been opened. I've appreciated your posts!

Our Builders and Bankers are the Backers and they are the ones who 'award' a 'Developers Premium' --- not EDM, and nor is it connected to the Tariff.

The article specifically describes the backers as 'world class builders

"...a meaningful proportion of its much larger capital cost which, generally, is provided by those world-class builders and bankers, which is why they are known as the ‘backers’."

https://masterinvestor.co.uk/equities/should-you-invest-in-coal-to-power/

[Others have highligted this too...]

-------------------------

Mozambique are not the world class builder, on our project (this is CMEC);

Mozambique are not the bankers either (that is the Chinese, State-owned banks, and others);

It is there, clear as BOLD.

We have Historic Costs Audit Report in matter of weeks if not days, certainly been told it is this month.

Finally, we got the chance to put some concrete value to the company.

Thanks for helping to clarify further Jimmy.

We should be moving on from this. Is a waste of energy.

In other words, CMEC are our world-class builders, China the Bankers; together, they are the ‘backers’. Besides historical costs (and whatever other ‘…element of a fee’), if the value of the project is significant enough (which we know will be the case), they will ‘award’ the sponsor (that’s NCCL/ us) a ‘development premium’. This ‘Development Premium’, or ‘Developers Premium’, is not connected to EDM or the tariff. This is, in our specific case, the subscription price for CMEC to take up their 60% stake. In earlier programmes of work on the project, it was referred to as the Development Premium. For convoluted reasons, the term was changed to Subscription Price/ Fee (other LTHs have a better grasp of why that has happened. I will leave it for them to comment, if they wish).