Member Info for Pask

Some of this may or may not be relevent to SAE, but it is intresting. I've been looking at a load of amendments suggested by the house of lords in relation to the GBE bill. There is (unfortunetly) nothing directly useful to us, but give greater insight into what GBE may become and how it may affect SAE and Proteus. Again, this is all early days, yet if you take a systematic approuch to these issues (as I try to do) then the information is useful in contextulising what GBE will be and how it (and its partners) may benifit SAE.

Firstly, there is a suggested amendment (6) which would allow private equity to own a 25% stake in GBE. Starmer was in talks with Blackrock recently, so I wonder if there could be overseas investment in GBE. There is also amendmenta (23, 25) which water downs GBE's involvemt in CCS and nuclear energy projects, i.e., less rivals for funding.

Of intrest to us, it seems that one amendment (42) sets a prelimary cap on the finacial assistance that the Secretary of State may provide to Great British energy at £8.3 billion. This suggests that there may be space for the goverment to increase the total investment of GBE from £125m back to £8.3b pounds if the goverment wants.

SAE and Proteus would (76) have to be mindful that 60% of material sourced under any investments made by Great British Energy must be supplied from UK manufacturers. This could be an issue. Likewise, (77) would require GBE to source 75 per cent of all materials purchased (as part of an investment by Great British Energy) be from within the United Kingdom. This might mean SAE and Proteus would have to use local supply chains. SAE and Proteus (79) could not rely on goverment subsidies if they wished to get investment from GBE.

Also intresting is amendment (102), which requires GBE to report on its relationships with GBN, Ofgem, NESO, UKIB,

CE. Again, there is a link between CE, UKIB/NWF and GBE which implies there is a synergy at play.

In direct relation to tidal energy, (113) would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on the environment and animal welfare standards of the installation and generation of offshore tidal energy technologies and its

associated cabling. Given current evidence, this might be an issue for tidal range technologies but less sor for us.

Source: https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/57120/documents/5426

Agreed, this will help with PR. Very glad of this update.

How long does it take for an RNS to come out regarding turbine installations again? Wait till next week, and if nothing is heard there is probably an issue.

I always thought it was Tim(aues) Cornelius.

Again, I'm with you. I respect Timaues.

I think you're probably right. I didn't really believe otherwise, but wanted to draw a response to see if there were any opposing views.

We're going to have to wait, I guess.

I am going to play devil's advocate: Perhaps it has not been installed, or there are issues with the installation. They might also want to gather data first to confirm if there are any issues with power generation.

I agree. The 4th turbine won't do the trick. BESS more likely.

There is money to be made here however. I think the crown estate bill might be key to the MeyGen stuff rather than GBE (and possibly NWF).

There is no guarantee, but it is good abductive reasoning on your part IMO. So long as PI’s like yourself or I can map out possible contingencies for financing, then we get a clearer picture of how the board could be thinking about these things. I appreciate your efforts oldtramp.

Eh, don't worry about typos. It's late.

I think you are right to note that.

Still, this give SAE/Proteus more room to manuver, and another source of finance outside of GBE or NWF. It seems a very positive development. The question is: Does the Scottish Goverment have any nessesary means to fund this directly? It's predominetly Labour at the moment, so party political games don't apply as much.

"Firstly, the Bill broadens the Crown Estate’s investment powers by removing existing restrictions. Secondly, the legislation allows the Crown Estate to borrow money from the Government, with Treasury consent, to invest in more expensive projects and free it up to “make better use of its assets”. This borrowing will be at commercial rates, meaning the interest it will pay outweighs the Government’s cost of borrowing, with the aim of it being a net benefit to public finances."

And a bonus, it has been reported that Lord Livermore of HM Treausury who is overseeing the bill has stated:

"He added that the new borrowing powers “act to accelerate and de-risk the sustainable delivery of offshore wind and other technologies, such as carbon capture, wave, tidal and hydrogen”. Existing limitations on the Crown Estate’s powers have meant it has had to generate capital for its investment by selling its assets. That is neither desirable, nor sustainable. And under current legislation, the Crown Estate is constrained in its ability to support sustainable projects and to preserve our heritage for generations to come. Thirdly, the Bill makes amendments relating to the governance of the Crown Estate “to bring it into line with best practice for modern corporate governance”.

Found the following for extra context:

https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/news/update-on-the-crown-estate-bill

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3739

In a similiar place to GBE bill.

Great find!

Still, everything else you said I agree with. Will be an intresting year.

You have to rember though, GBE won't have a lot of capital to use during that time (£125 million? I can't remeber the exact number). It also was said that it would focus on solar projects first of all.

They could back track in future, but if we get anything from anyone of significance it would be the NWF while GBE gains momentum.

This is still good, but we still need direct funding at this point and not just CfD.

I can only assume either Proteus or SAE are trying to get everything they need to sell their project as a realistic one.

I feel we are really, really near the point of getting the capital one way or another to execute the project. I am not saying things can't go south, but I do feel there might be a tipping point either in sixth months to a years time.

Granted, I could be horribly, horribly wrong. But I would be fool hardy enough to bet a small sum on it and not mind loosing it.

Ah, "£270 million for emerging technologies such as floating offshore wind and tidal, an uplift of £165 million".

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/record-breaking-funding-for-clean-energy-in-britain

"What could make the difference this time is the combination of net-zero targets growing ever closer, continuous backing from the Scottish Government, and a new government in Westminster that has earmarked tidal for a possible share of an extra £270m in funding. "

Okay.

When was this said?

Is this recent?

I think we need to clarify this point, because it would not come from GBE as far as I am concerned.

You might have found another piece in the puzzle Lover. I would have liked your comment twice if I could, but we need clarification on this point. That is a very specific number, and alligns with what Proteus has said regarding the MoU with SAE.

"The company’s cost reduction projections for its AR3000 tidal energy system were recently validated by the European Investment Bank (EIB), which confirmed that levelized cost of energy (LCoE) reduction targets are achievable."

Thanks Mumin.