Member Info for originalharrystamper

Now, regarding another point I am particularly in favour of - the 'lock-in' period (page 27):

LOCK-INS AND ORDERLY MARKET ARRANGEMENTS

The Company, following Admission, is subject to the requirements of Rule 7 of the AIM Rules (“AIM Rule 7”). All of the Directors and applicable employees who hold Ordinary Shares and related parties, including substantial shareholders have agreed:

* for a period of 12 months from Admission, that they will not dispose of any of the Ordinary Shares held by them (or enter into a transaction with the same economic effect)

* during the period commencing on the 12 month anniversary of Admission and ending on the 18 month anniversary of Admission, that they will not dispose of more than one third of the Ordinary Shares held by them (or enter into a transaction with the same economic effect)

* during the period commencing on the 18 month anniversary of Admission and ending on the 24 month anniversary of Admission, that they will not dispose of more than two thirds of the Ordinary Shares held by them (or enter into a transaction with the same economic effect) (inclusive of any Ordinary Shares disposed of during the period of commencing on the 12 month anniversary of Admission and ending on the 18 month anniversary of Admission)

4. "Substantial interest has also been received by the Group to supply fire paint, insulating render and the associated primer to a sub-distributor that will supply end-users in the aviation and marine engineering industries. The sub-distributor has indicated potential interest in Zenova’s fire extinguishers once the relevant certification has been granted" - this is another one we will hopefully see a contract for in the near term

5. "The Group is finalising terms of engagement with the Australian Government to apply insulating paint, render and primer to the internal walls of a number of government buildings. Since initial conversations, the potential contract has doubled in size and represents a significant revenue opportunity for Zenova" - and another one not yet reported but with the other Australia contract (RNS 10/11/21) in place, hopefully this be yet another very good revenue stream for ZED

6. "The Directors consider the forest fire fighting market to be a significant opportunity for Zenova and will continue to target sales with fire services across North America, Europe and Asia" - product already launched 12/10/21 (see RNS) so now awaiting some contracts

7. "The Group has agreed a trial with a large UK construction firm to install mini fire extinguishers in a sample of its vehicles. If the trial is successful, the Directors believe that the customer will consider ordering a significant number of extinguishers for use in its vehicles nationwide" - yet another RNS to look forward to!

OHS

Hi SpinShady - yes, I have seen the Tony Crawley interview. We just need a lot more advertising and interviews to get their products being discussed imo. Have you seen their LinkedIn account? Only got 62 followers so this would be a good starting point for them to target. Like I said, not much in the way of new info and research our there so I have stuck to the IPO Admission pdf and taken points from that to further explore (link here - https://36y9lv4401u736ma42s4tbfi-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Admission-Document.pdf)

For example, page 23 references the current trading and prospects of the company at the time of admission and what is very good to see is that some of those contracts have already been placed and RNS'd and as stated in this section, "The significant majority of the revenues derived in the first full year following Admission will occur in the financial year ended 30 November 2022".

1. "The Group has a framework agreement in place to supply various customers in the construction industry with fire protection paint and insulating render and paint in Australia" - RNS'd 10/11/21 https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/ZED/zenova-secures-1632m-a-year-contract-in-australia-xx691qpgehyv7xb.html

2. The Group has received significant expressions of interest from a sub-distributor representing a UK social housing trust to supply fire paint and fire paint primer for doors in apartment blocks. In the first twelve months from Admission, the Directors expect this to cover an initial four London Boroughs, before expanding across London and the UK" - RNS'd 08/11/21 and 16/11/21 for the London Boroughs of Enfield and Redbridge. This is a huge potential revenue for ZED as from the Distributor’s discussions with numerous social housing trusts and procurement agencies, the Directors believe that there are thousands of doors in social housing that do not meet current fire regulations. The Directors anticipate that each painted door could have a value of hundreds of pounds in revenue to the Group.

3. "The same sub-distributor also represents the NHS and has expressed interest for the supply of fire paint and primer to be applied to 13 hospital roof voids across the UK. At the date of this Admission Document, the Group is finalising a formal order commitment with the sub-distributor" - this is yet to reported so hopefully an expected RNS ion due course

TBC....

Good morning all....... well, it's a fairly quiet board so I'm not sure who I'm actually writing to at the moment! ha! I've spent a good bit of time reading the IPO (85 pages!) and also their website and videos. I very much like what I see and have taken a position here last week. Seems there is very little in the public domain on Zenova's products, other than what they have either RNS'd or put on their own website. Any notes or findings from other investors here greatly appreciated but in the meantime, I may put a few highlights from the IPO on here with thoughts and questions of my own.

Cheers,

OHS

Not much out there in terms or researchable articles but have you seen this?:

https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/news/shares/brave-bison-is-the-uks-challenger-digital-advertising-company

You invested here Big Red? Quiet BB and little trade volume. I've run some quick fag packet figures and significant holders account for approx. 70% of the shares in issue. Add to that the holders of anything below 3% and that probably doesn't leave much for retail investors to get their hands on. Start of a new year though so quite possibly plenty to come from a company specialising in social media content. Linkedin has a few good videos with some of their predictions of what is going to be 'big' in 2022

OHS

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?