To be fair, you do take his bait!
Eric, I’ll stick around till half 11, let’s have a quick Q&A - you go first. Shoot
S83 - I actually can’t quite fathom what emotion or emoji I could use to categorise his posts. I simply don’t see the relation or impact that Mr Gupta’s current predicament has on SAE? As stated by SAE, they are an independent company. SIMEC hold 43% of the shares (soon to be less if the subscriber requests more) - that’s it. Unless the SIMEC Group decide to sell their holding, what does it matter? And even if they do, what does it matter? It’s a pointless Eric-rhetoric. As already posted on here, this is the Achilles heel: https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2021-03/strategic-assessment-or%20the-future-need-for-energy-from-waste-capacity-in-wales.pdf
I had just written this but it wouldn’t post. I see the reason why is that Eric’s post has been removed so I couldn’t reply directly
Eric, just let it go. I’ve only posted 3 times this month in VRE - that is clear to see for anyone who wishes to go full Sherlock on me. I took a punt in their based on links and research OT posted in there. As for SAE, I will reiterate once again - I posted research and links to formative information for any investor to choose to follow and read. Anyone choosing to follow and read those links then used their own free will and judgement to decide whether to use that information, along with their own research, to either make an investment here or not. Equally, the same applies when making a decision to sell. And here’s some food for thought - if you think for one moment that anyone on here has the ability to actually manipulate a SP and you are holding me, OT and others to account then it stands to reason that your incessant negative posts have lost investors much, much more than I ever made them seeing as the SP is now sub 9p. OHS
For what it's worth now, the FPMP is now available to read on the NRW site:
https://publicregister.naturalresources.wales/Search/Results?SearchTerm=+PAN-008534&sortBy=Date&filters%5BLocation%5D=&filters%5BLocalAuthority%5D=&SortRelated=Date&SortRelated=Date&SortRelated=Date&SortRelated=Date&SortRelated=Date&SortRelated=Date&SortRelated=Date&SortRelated=Date&SortRelated=Date&SortRelated=Date&SortRelated=Date&SortRelated=Date&SortRelated=Date&SortRelated=Date&SortRelated=Date&SortRelated=Date&SortRelated=Date&SortRelated=Date&SortRelated=Date&SortRelated=Date
Likewise. Just need some news from the front line now! If ever there was a share to test patience its this one!
ST - on the contrary - they maximised the time they had. If they had submitted before the 19th (deadline date) and had EP rejected then they would have failed to deliver SUP partly due to not utilising all resources (time) to the best of their ability. They have no doubt being going over and over this information multiple times, questioning and brainstorming every perceivable question and query to ensure they have submitted every ounce of information required as this is the last submission NRW would take. Proper due diligence. OHS
Eric, if you had just re-familiarised yourself with the original post (03/02/21 @ 18:06 - that’s 6:06pm) you would see that at no point was I talking about planning permission, it was the Environmental Permit. I’ll post the extract again for you (and everyone else to see) in the hope that you give your forehead a damn good slap when realisation kicks in.
“However, aside from this, something else now concerns me more - the Environmental Permit. I have been an advocate of the idea of SUP and have supported this belief with many links to research for people to form their own opinions. I still believe that SAE will achieve the EP for SUP in time but I now have it on good authority that May 2021 is the earliest that any decision would be made. I was previously under the impression that this was the date of the final decision and a draft decision could have been much sooner but this is not the case. For me, this was too long to wait. It is always in everyone's best interest to explore all research avenues and make contact with people who may be able to better explain details that have been put on the public forums that are accessible to us all (NRW, Newport Council Public Register etc.....).”
You keep referring to a continuous rhetoric of my ‘good authority’. It seems rather obvious to me from the extract above that I am simply alluding to the fact I emailed someone to seek clarification of the expected NRW decision date but wasn’t prepared to ‘name drop’. Now, be careful you don’t use up all your remaining screen time before bed, looking for other ways get things wrong.
OHS
Eric, you are confusing the 2 once again. 'Planning Permission' has not been refused, it just hasn't been approved (yet). The 'Environmental Permit' has not been refused or approved (yet), it is not due to be decided on until May 2021 at the earliest (according to NRW).
With regard to Planning - the holding direction was publicised on NCC's website the day before the meeting https://documents.newport.gov.uk/PublicAccess_LIVE/Document/ViewDocument?id=034FC186CDF54CFDB1128C577243C45D
With regard to Environmental Permit - clarification of publicised information was sought regarding the expected date of the EP decision being May 2021
OHS
Yes, interpretation is down to the individual (as it always should be). Regarding the comment about halting ‘financing for projects related to building coal-fired power plants at home and abroad’ - that seems pretty much black and white but this paragraph - “The group will also establish a system to assess environmental and social risks related to development projects by the first half of this year, to refrain from financing projects that might damage the environment or violate human rights” was the the one that raised my eyebrows. It is certainly open to interpretation, especially given that an exclusive debt financing agreement between SAE and HFI was announced last year
Strangy et al - it’s no surprise that the recent GFG news has cast a shadow on SAE. I agree that this ‘issue’ should not have a direct affect on SAE but unfortunately it does cause an indirect consequence due to SIMEC being part of GFG. I feel there is too much concern with the impact this GFG news has on SAE though. Yes, as stated above there is the obvious connection but not to the point of causing serious concern to SAE. Worst case scenario, SIMEC as a whole or an asset of SIMEC (SUP share holding) is sold off and the connection is severed. I feel this is causing misdirection from SAE as a whole and certainly SUP as an individual project. Unfortunately, SUP success or failure has a direct affect on SAE as a whole. A lot of chat about SUP has naturally centred around NRW (awaiting EP decision) and NCC (pending call in decision). Certain other elements are being overlooked imo. With this in mind, what do you make of this and what affect do you think it will have on SUP and therefore SAE?:
https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2021/03/11/business/finance/hana-bank-shinhan-bank-hana-financial-group/20210311161500498.html
OHS
WB - The £4m is an investment purse as part of the Governments £92m investment package (£68m interestingly going towards power storage tech). I believe the biomass element is aimed more so to the growing of energy crops so not really much of a benefit to SUP. Off topic, this is much more relevant:
https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/sanjeev-gupta-in-talks-to-negotiate-reprieve-on-greensill-capital-debt-121031100035_1.html
OHS
ST - perhaps because they thought back in December that the SP would be well above 20p by mid March 2021 and so could terminate without releasing more shares in the second tranche.
Disregard my comment G-Man, it is relevant regarding the 5p level for second tranche - I misread the RNS paragraph. OHS
Not relevant G-Man. This is the important bit:
“Both parties may postpone an investment by the Investor in relation to its third and fourth tranches of investment for up to 90 days on one occasion only during the term of the Agreement. In the case of the Investor, it may also postpone the second, third and fourth tranches of investment for up to 60 days if the market price of the Company's Shares is equal to or less than a base price of £0.13 per Share (in the case of the third and fourth tranches) and £0.05 per Share (in the case of the second tranche) for two consecutive trading days. If during the period of postponement the market price does not recover to equal or exceed that price for an agreed period then the Investor will have the right to elect to terminate the Agreement. In the case of Atlantis, it will have the right to elect to terminate the Agreement (and not to consummate the second, third and fourth tranches of investment) if the market price of the Company's Shares is less than a cancellation floor price of £0.20 per Share. As noted above, Atlantis will also have the right to terminate the Agreement regardless of market price if it does so prior to the second tranche of investment and upon the payment of a cancellation fee of £48,000”.
Note that SAE can cancel the agreement if SP is below 20p. It will be interesting to see which way it goes - let the investor subscribe to more shares sub 13p or not let them have any....
OHS
Interesting point ST - 12.3 to buy now - where are the mms getting shares from to sell on at 12.3p??
The glimmer is getting shinier:
https://www.business-live.co.uk/manufacturing/liberty-steel-says-adequate-funding-20014359
OHS
A glimmer of hope:
https://www.business-live.co.uk/manufacturing/calls-government-consider-support-sanjeev-20002569
Either the journalist is ill informed or SAE are still weighing up their options regarding PPAs:
"It also has an interest in the Uskmouth Power Station , which is seeking to raise investment to move to biomass energy generation to supply the adjoining Liberty Steel Newport plant"
OHS
OT - yes mate, not a massive amount but looks like I timed it quite well - bought at just under 12p week before last. OHS