We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Thanks for your quick replies Vauch and Sirir. Makes absolute sense regarding not buying the current POSP. So, in that case, TOM (via Greenfield) have the Petroteq licence to use at TSHII which is a 12% Saturation of oil. Valkor have the sub surface drilling rights of PQEs Asphalt Ridge NW leases and PQE are about to be taken over by Viston. Is that correct? If so, and the offer was prior to the lease swap, why was the lease swap conducted? Why did Valkor give up 3 x 12% leases for the 6% Temple Mountain lease? Is it because their main area of interest is drilling not tar sands? I like your idea of Valkor potentially buying out TOM - would this be due to TOMs exclusive access to TSHII? Why did PQE want Asphalt Ridge if the BOD intended on accepting Viston offer? Am I right in thinking that the main asset value of TOM is their 100% ownership of Greenfield and therefore TSHII? Was part of the Viston deal to give exclusivity to Valkor for any operations at Asphalt Ridge NW leases?
Hi Vauch, I've been reading up on Tomco to re-familiarise myself with recent events. Can you have a quick look below and let me know whether I'm in the ball park? Cheers
1. TOM and Valkor 50/50 JV'd a company called Greenfield Energy who licenced Petroteq's tech from them
2. TOM went on to buy* Valkor's 50% stake for circa 580m shares in TOM - *to be paid once financing arranged for new POSP plant
3. Greenfield modified PQE's POSP plant to add QFI tech and went on to process ore from TSHII
4. Greenfield opted to buy 10% stake of TSHII lease area and option to buy remaining 90% at a later date
5. Valkor funded this purchase with $1.5m - to be repaid to Valkor from proceeds of sales of hydrocarbons from site
6. Viston then tried to take over PQE
7. PQE then do a swap deal with Valkor for Valkor's 3 x Asphalt Ridge NW leases, which are right next door to TSHII leases, in exchange for PQE's Temple Mountain lease (where current POSP is) + 3 other leases
8. So, PQE now have 3 x leases of approx. 12% oil saturation and Valkor have Temple Mountain lease site of 6% saturation
Questions I now have are: What does this mean for TOM in the grand scheme of things? - they still have TSHII so nothing changed there. The POSP is still PQE's but now on land lease owned by Valkor. What are your thoughts for POSP now? Especially considering todays PQE news of the BOD agreeing to the takeover? Sell the POSP to Greenfield perhaps? Can they? It's an asset so factored in to what Viston are paying for? Will Viston sell it? I've no doubt missed some elements out but I think that's the main jist of it?
Agree, it’s all eggs in one Welsh basket! With regard to your profit comment below - thats the whole concept behind the NPA Fuels JV with N+P - the JV company will take the gate fee of the waste and produce the pellets for Uskmouth. It was an absolute no brainer of an idea - build your own pellet production plants and take the gate fee to produce your own fuel! The bigger picture is (once environmental permit is achieved either in Wales or elsewhere) to convert other redundant coal fired power stations and supply subcoal to them so the business model for NPA is huge. Global if you like. We have to assume that SAE aren’t just waiting on Wales to make a decision on the EP - the fact that Peel L&Ps permit variation has now gone to public consultation in England surely isn’t just a coincidence?…..
OHS
Morning cygan - have you compared caloric values, burning properties, emissions, operating temps etc…. of RDF/SRF v subcoal PAF pellets? You can’t simply compare an EFW plant with an actual Power Station. The 4 EFW plants you listed below don’t even produce half the MW power that Uskmouth would produce when combined together!
https://electricityproduction.uk/plant/waste/
DRAX was also discussed in the House of Lords yesterday, it’s worth reading the following transcript to get a better understanding of opinion as to how environmentally friendly, sustainable and biodiverse it actually is:
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2021-12-13a.1.0&s=Drax
Granted, Uskmouth has a fair fight on its hands, which unfortunately is, for the majority part down to simply location in Wales imo. The fact that NRW were minded to grant the environmental permit is a very important fact that shouldn’t be overlooked, regardless of what side of the fence you sit on
OHS
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1036257/cfd4-allocation-round-notice.pdf
Commenced today and closes 14/01/22
OHS
This paper now seems even more important, given the recent EA consultation for the permit variation to build a subcoal PAF pellet plant in Cheshire to supply Uskmouth/other sectors:
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/ChemEngineering/ChemEngineering-05-00054/article_deploy/ChemEngineering-05-00054.pdf
Conclusion on page 14:
“The Ea of SubcoalTM PAF obtained in this work for pyrolysis, CO2 gasification, and combustion are lower than Ea of SRF/RDF obtained in the literature. This result proves that SubcoalTM PAF provides a faster chemical reaction time than SRF/RDF and other biomass. SubcoalTM technology improves utilisation of MSW and prevents landfill, as a result of meeting the increasing demand for lower emissions and high-calorie fuels. It is a crucial sustainable technology that helps utilisation of non-recyclable materials in energy sectors that could otherwise be lost into landfills.”
OHS
For anyone who hasn’t joined all the dots yet, this Environmental Agency consultation period (commenced yesterday) for the application to vary Peel L&Ps permit at Protos Park to build a pellet production plant (to supply Uskmouth Power Station) will be handed over to NPA Fuels Ltd if/when granted. NPA Fuels is the JV company half owned by SAE. See RNS below:
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SAE/entry-into-fuel-joint-venture-agreement-u2hnhip8lyqpo7y.html
Just speculating G1 - you have referenced Germany and German postings in a number of your posts and said a lot about good news imminent etc..... Standardkessel-Baumgarte are a German company who won the contract to build the new EFW plant at at Protos Park in Cheshire for Peel L&P. Peel L&P submitted an application to vary their existing environmental permit of a waste sorting facility to now build a pellet manufacturing facility that will produce subcoal PAF pellets for Uskmouth and the Environmental Agency (EA) has now opened up the consultation to the public yesterday! Looks quite interesting to me....
OHS
Gentleman1 - have you seen my post to you below? Any comment? Whether this is what you were on about or not, this EA consultation that opened yesterday is huge news and potentially has a very important part to play for SAE imo
OHS
This consultation commenced yesterday by the way
Gentleman1 - I see you've made a few references to Germany, is it anything to do with this:
https://eswet.eu/standardkessel-baumgarte-news-incoming-order-for-a-large-two-line-efw-plant/
They will be building an EFW Plant at the Protos Park in Cheshire. Why is this important and what is the possible relation here?:
Check out the latest Environmental Agency consultation - navigate to the Non Technical Summary link on that page:
https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/psc/ch2-4rb-peel-l-p-environmental-protos-limited/
"The proposed facility will accept and process up to 650,000 tpa of selected mixed wastes and SRF materials. Of this 425,000 tpa will be processed to produce a high specification pelletised fuel for export to Uskmouth Power Station, South Wales. In addition, up to 225,000 tpa Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) bales (Main Burner Quality and Calciner Quality) may be produced and exported off site for energy recovery"
"Once this permit variation has been determined, the permitted activities in full will be transferred to NPA Fuels Limited which is addressed within the Permit Transfer application. Due to the legally enforceable terms of the site lease which relate to the tenant and future operator of the site (NPA Fuels Limited), the permit transfer cannot take place until the variation has been determined by the Environment Agency."
NPA Fuels Ltd is the JV company with N+P Group who currently manufacture subcoal PAF! If the Uskmouth conversion is denied by the WG either by planning application or EP, this pellet plant could supply this new EFW and a whole new venture for SAE via NPA perhaps? After all, NRW were minded to grant the EP until WG called it in. Could EP be sought outside of Wales?
Also, see the following informative news report from ENDS Waste and Bioenergy: https://www.endswasteandbioenergy.com/article/1735536/peel-plans-waste-derived-fuel-uskmouth-coal-conversion
Lots to think about
OHS
Draft - have you considered the current SP factors in the current operationally deployed turbines? Whether it’s 4 or 1, I’m sure the MMs will be well aware of the number - it only takes a text message, phone call or email to find out……
probably the facts to confirm that the 3 turbines are not OUT of the water.....I'll show you mine if you show me yours
Draft - Where is the source for your statement please? The 28th Sept RNS stated the following:
"MeyGen experienced interruption to generation during the first half of 2021. We expect the AR1500 turbine and Andritz turbine number 1 to be redeployed during Q4 of 2021, at which point 3 out of 4 turbines will be deployed and generating. Andritz turbine number 2 remains out of the water whilst waiting for long lead items, the delivery of which have been affected by COVID-19. Andritz turbine number 3 is deployed and has been generating successfully with above 95% availability since December 2018, continuing to prove the viability of tidal energy."
Is an assumption being made that because SAE haven't released a RNS to state they have been redeployed, that assumed they haven't? As per this news article from 30/08/21: https://www.offshore-energy.biz/overhauled-meygen-turbines-to-be-redeployed-in-single-offshore-operation/ 2 of the turbines were due to be redeployed so there is no reason to assume that they haven't is there?
"To be eligible to bid in CfD ARs, projects must have secured a lease plot, grid connection and consents. For AR4, scheduled for late 2021, three tidal stream projects are eligible to bid: Morlais in Wales (14?MW), the Perpetuus Tidal Energy Centre (PTEC) in England (30?MW) and MeyGen 1C in Scotland (80?MW). Projects that win subsidy support in AR4 must be operational from 2026."
Ref: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2021.0469
Morlais has yet to gain consents as far as I can tell: https://publicregister.naturalresources.wales/Search/Results?searchTerm=morlais&sortBy=Date&pageNumber=1
Perpetuus Tidal Energy Centre is at the planning application submission stage: https://perpetuustidal.com/
So that leaves Meygen - I wonder how much of the lion's share Meygen could be allocated given the above stages of the only other 2 eligible participants? Is it a pure coincidence or a very well timed JV with Nova?
OHS
Draft - you’ve mentioned a couple of times now that the turbines were removed due to damage, can you post a link to the source please? 2 were out for quarter life maintenance as per the following link: https://www.offshore-energy.biz/overhauled-meygen-turbines-to-be-redeployed-in-single-offshore-operation/
This was dated 30/08/21 so if you have an newer source/link to the details of the damage I’d be interested to read your reference as looks like you’re making an assumption…..
“The 1.5MW turbines – SIMEC Atlantis’ AR1500 and Andritz Hydro Hammerfest AH1000 MK1 – have been retrieved onshore for planned quarter-life maintenance. While in the workshop, the turbines have undergone basic routine maintenance, including oil and filter changes, and will soon be ready for reinstallation at the MeyGen site in Caithness”
OHS
sma43 - unfortunately yes. The ‘plan’ was to supply Uskmouth initially then future conversions as and when. They were looking at sites for the production plants last year (I believe 3 or 4 were proposed to be able to produce what would be required annually for Uskmouth before the WG got involved). The Teesside plant is purely N+P and nothing to do with SAE. Uskmouth environmental permit would have paved the way for all of this as it would have been the catalyst that rubber stamped Subcoal PAF as a replacement fuel for coal powered power stations, globally. You can see why it is such a kick in the n*ts for them.
Oh dear, seems someone hasn’t done their research before posting…..
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SAE/entry-into-fuel-joint-venture-agreement-u2hnhip8lyqpo7y.html
Slick - The Conversion Engineering Manager for Uskmouth
Published: 30 August 2021