Member Info for JMUK26

They could have done that Rag but the way they have done it is cleaner and fairer from a governmental and optics point of view. They create a standard approach for everyone and each project needs to be assessed individually. For example a data centre that has something else attached to it which creates hundreds of jobs is not the same as a data centre with just a few jobs associated with it, so it would be unfair to say X sector is exempt. They probably won't announce the rates agreed for each project, so the unions won't know, but they will at least look to have assessed and on balance done what is best for Paraguay.

The fertiliser plant provides a huge amount of job creation so is a very different kettle of fish. 200 direct factory appointments, and an additional 1100 indirect jobs (which only existing because of the factory).

Rag this is why they are moving to assessment on a project by project basis. They have specifically stated that it will take into account what the project gives back ie job creation, social value etc. Data centres off very little benefit other than paying for the power used hence they will get a much higher bill and still be profitable. Things like fertiliser production, transport infrastructure etc gives back and will therefore - presumably - get lower prices otherwise the critical infrastructure won’t get built. And the unions won’t decide anything, sure they have a say and that is what the policy change is addressing.

Agree Skid. I think that is how it will pan out. Our terms may stay exactly the same, or we may be a little worse off, but I doubt anything major personally. It will however delay things until it is formally signed which the market never likes. Lets hope for an MoU or something soon to settle the backers.

I don't agree that this was negligence on Levine's behalf at all. You have some major players here and they all signed up to the same deal and did what would have been ridiculous amounts of due diligence, as they reasonably they don't expect governments to renegade on terms agreed. They are hardly going to go out and start discussing with unions to see what they would be happy with either are they, that is just a ridiculous suggestion. That is governments role and not something Atome or its lenders would ever get involved with. Hoping for a relatively swift resolution here as I doubt either side can afford to let this deal fail, and Atome are not the focus of the policy shift.

The UK government did something highly comparable recently, which proves that ripping up pre-agreed terms isn't just a third-world or emerging market risk—even major Western G7 economies will move the goalposts mid-game when under political pressure. To lower energy bills, the UK unilaterally stepped in and altered legacy renewable frameworks, retroactively switching inflation indexation from RPI to CPI for existing wind and solar projects.

It was a blunt, state-driven intervention that broke long-term regulatory assumptions and left institutional infrastructure investors furious.

The big difference is that while a major power like the UK did a permanent, across-the-board cash grab, Paraguay is using its policy shift as an administrative filter to choke out crypto miners while leaving a bespoke backdoor wide open for genuine infrastructure. Sovereign risk exists everywhere, but ATOME's position under a project-by-project framework is far more secure.

Having had a few hours to digest the news I’m a bit more comfortable than I was earlier and the crash is hopefully well overdone. Depending on how things look in a few weeks I may even top up (yikes).

Paraguay has a massive amount of cheap hydro-power from the Itaipu dam, so back in January the government passed a sweeping decree offering ultra-low, fixed long-term power rates to attract big tech. It worked too well. Power guzzling crypto farms and speculative AI data centers have flooded the grid, triggering a massive public and union backlash because they suck up energy but create next to zero local jobs. To kill this, the President used a blunt instrument and has ripped up that broad January decree entirely.

Because Atome’s Villeta project falls under the Power-to-X green energy umbrella, its fixed-rate PPA was legally tied to that exact same generic decree framework meaning we got dragged into the crossfire.

The new decree replaces flat-rate tariffs with project-by-project frameworks. The government has to be seen as not giving anyone special dispensation or playing favorites, so on paper, everyone starts from scratch.

Behind closed doors, this new system is designed to separate high-value infrastructure from crypto rubbish. Atome is the absolute model citizen for what Paraguay actually wants because we are bringing four thousand construction jobs, thirteen hundred operational roles, and a local green fertilizer supply to secure the massive Mercosur agricultural hub. We are at the front of the queue for a bespoke, favorable deal and will be one of the first customers in the list to renegotiate with. We may even get the same rates.

Squeezing a slightly higher tariff is also standard hardball tactic, but the tier-one multinational lenders like the World Bank IFC, the European Investment Bank, and IDB Invest won't let them kill the project's baseline economics. Paraguay's state utility can easily bully or ignore a private venture capital fund running a data center. They cannot bully the World Bank without triggering a massive sovereign credit crisis that would instantly wreck the country’s newly earned investment-grade rating.

Legal sign-off on a new, project-specific PPA will likely push things back by three to six months. But there could be a near-term RNS confirming an agreement in principle on the core pricing terms to calm the backers. Once that pricing is locked, the political risk premium evaporates. I'm letting the institutional giants do the heavy lifting behind closed doors and holding tight until we know more.

Well that's not good is it. Now hugely down on my investment and having weighed up the RNS, I may as well stick it out now rather than selling at this capitulated price. Its been tanked like its been cancelled, but it is up for renegotiation, its just whether the terms are still acceptable to everyone. The risk is that investors no longer trust Paraguay and walk. Will hold and see how this plays out I think. The UK has done the very same thing recently, and caused carnage in renewable stocks. Sloppy governance..

They can build in the UK now, but for mass scale adoption they will likely need a BBA certificate. Eco have confirmed what BS EN standards (which are more stringent that UK standards) they have tested their system to, but not how the panels actually performed within each test so we are all in the dark. For example what fire performance rating did they achieve? It's a critical piece of information that to my knowledge they haven't bothered to publish or announce despite fire spread being a very hot topic - no pun intended. I can't see the product being anything but very good in this regard so the lack of info is pretty poor and the lack of performance info just put off potential specifiers. I contacted them about this, but received no response which is not good. I think less regulated markets are a better use of ECO's time and resources at the moment personally.

Disappointing to see this back in the 30's. Beesty - what is your reason for investment in SpaceX? Just looks like a ridiculously overvalued meme stock to me. You hoping for a quick jump on listing and getting out or a long term investment. Suspect money better invested here, but it's been a bit all over the place recently.

Given we issued draft documents in Feb and presumably closed out any outstanding SEC comments before issuing the final version in May, I'd expect a fairly quick approval turnaround. Looking at other similar scenarios 35-50 days is very common from formal application -after a period of draft consultation- to listing going live, so on that basis i'm expecting mid July.

Based on what Sirmark? Not de-ramping, as I have a sizable holding here, but not seen any particular trigger to rerate the share price other than being undervalued generally.

Really disappointing to only be a little above the price it was sat at pre-announcement of NSTA approval. AIM particularly, and the general British investor is utterly abysmal at valuing anything pre revenue/profit, with a long term horizon as patience is practically at zero. It just want dividends and now. Why wait years for 1000's % gain when you can bank a 1% gain in a week. Yawn...

Yep, MassiveRay / Aldebaran green boxed earlier this week for me. One argues with Kat and just follows her aroudn the forum, the other is an obvious de-ramper. Neither bring anything to the table here.

Shychap - The link you have sent is to the approved documents for building control, how is this any use for anybody? These are just guidance documents that show how building regs can be achieved on any given project. Also Passivhaus is just a certifiable design principle and isn't a company that will help Eco. What are they going to fall short of exactly? I think you are getting confused as to what Eco do tbh.

That's fair enough magic-orb, you've been uncomfortable with your holding for some time so probably the right thing to do for your own sanity. I have a different take and hope over the next year or so, the SP will rerate much higher. This is a hugely overweight position for me personally.

With todays RNS, I take it that it is full steam ahead on Hypromag's USA FID, as it is extremely unlikely they would unnecessarily start cash burn now if funding wasn't very close and on terms they are comfortable with. That fact that they left FID by Q2 in their latest presentation is telling.

We then have a Hypromag USA listing to look forward to probably in a years time realistically. This could be huge.

And a very near term catalyst is the MKAR listing which should really highlight the inadequate valuation on AIM against peers and force an uplift.

Time will tell, but I remain very bullish here.

Without being rude MassiveRay, you are falling hook line and sinker to these obvious "fishing" posts by constantly engaging and trying to prove they are wrong. They are not listening to you and you are also just spamming up the board maybe unknowingly. Just filter or stop responding please.

Can't you lot just filter the obvious 2 de-rampers lol? Appreciate you want to respond to show that their commentary is false or misleading, but we've all been there and done that and it doesn't work, as they don't read your posts and what they are saying isn't what they believe anyway. They are just trying to flip flop between negative and false positive sentiment to scrape a percent gain here and there. Just filter for the sake of the board please.

Things are just getting worse and worse here. I gave them the benefit of the doubt that they were on an unlucky run for about a year, but sold months ago when I decided it was serious mis-management rather than luck. The subsequent RNS's since have revealed even more negative case outcomes for sizable sums as well. Struggling to see a positive outcome for investors here.

No worries. What they decide will probably tell us something about how strong the panel is, and how much emphasis they place on efficiency and stamping out time wasting.

Not quite JazzyGeoff - bit of de-ramping or lack of process knowledge going on there.

Yes, a decision on bifurcation is currently pending following Morocco's request, but in the meantime, the schedule needs to be stuck to. If it gets rejected, then there is no change to current schedule. If request granted, schedule gets revisited and updated and timeline slips.

And btw, 65%+ of bifurcation requests are declined, so I'm expecting the same here.