Member Info for Pask

Fair play.

it also explains a slight (very subtle) passive-aggressive rns i read a few years ago (can't remeber which one). it was good news, but i could sense they were slightly ****ed off. i think they were getting annoyed at investors complaining all the time about the lack of silence and them not doing anything.

"i'll say this: i'm not sad that i kept averaging down when we were around 1 gbx ..."

same. i am actually in the green by quite a margin. although that is based on a fool's luck, in contrast to the (relative) sanity and prudence of other lth on this board. could always go south, but i just don't care that much anymore.

Cool, Graham addressed why they didn't say that much over the years.

I'd say at this point in time, any rise will depend a lot on news and publicity.

The thing about the stock market, is it's quite irrational and driven by emotion and sentiment. While there is very good reason to believe that the stock price should be higher (how high is another question), you need to generate a good story and get your name out there. I think Tim Cornelius was quite good this, but they have taken a more conservative approach recently for different reasons (which has paid off). SAE would need to be mentioned in articles in periodicals such as the FT, the Guardian, the Economist, etc., go on more podcasts and videos, and so on. This is what happened with ITM in 2020 as far as I can remember, which generated a bit of a frenzy (although other factors were involved in this). It is now easier for them to get their name out there, as there would be less stigma now in mentioning them in such articles as a viable party alongside NOVA, Orbital, etc. At least, in theory. Now, the question is, would it be a good idea for management to focus on PR to try to get the share price up? It might not be on their list of priorities for whatever reason.

That's my take on the issue, at least.

Better, but not good per se, would be most reasonable. I do think there may be a pleasant surprise or two in the pipeline however. If they are doing a video, I would suspect they are more positive about the general situation considering they have been silent during periods where it was more rocky. They do seem to have a commitment to the operation as it stands, and I slightly trust the board for all their faults more than others. They have had to make difficult descions, but the company MAY have a future now. Just dealt a bad hand of cards.

Is there a reasonable ground to think Labour will up this figure if they get into government. Considering the original figure, they touted was about £28 billion. The figure of £8.3 billion isn't that much, when you consider other technologies, we would have to compete with.

Cheers. Yeah, what you said is reasonable. I'm just paranoid based on past performance.

Will they have sufficent funds to do both? Or will the payments they recieve go to other things?

"GB Energy will be able to invest in and deliver projects to provide additional investment alongside the private sector. Its initial priority will be to co-invest in leading edge energy technologies where this can de-risk and unlock private sector investment."

"As Britain becomes a clean energy superpower, there are a number of emerging energy technologies

that will require patient, long-term co-investment.

Examples of this might include the emerging green hydrogen, offshore floating wind or tidal industries,

where there could be an important role for GBE to co-invest in research and development and

production and share the equity benefits of the UK’s export potential."

Source: https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Make-Britain-a-Clean-Energy-Superpower.pdf

Will it be good for SAE?

To be honest, there isn't anything in here that wasn't already known. But it does seem that this will be there plan going forward. Seems similiar to the 2019 manifesto IMO, not that I'm complaining. Just wish they would have got there sh*t together 5 years ago, instead of infighting. I hate politics.

Continued:

"To drive forward investment in clean, home-grown energy production, Labour will create a new publicly-owned company, Great British Energy. It will be owned by the British people and deliver power back to the British people.

Great British Energy will partner with industry and trade unions to deliver clean power by co-investing in leading technologies; will help support capital-intensive projects; and will deploy local energy production to benefit communities across the country. To support this, Labour will capitalise Great British Energy with £8.3 billion, over the next parliament.

The company will create jobs and build supply chains in every corner of the UK. Scotland will be the powerhouse of our clean energy mission, with Great British Energy headquartered there.

Local power generation is an essential part of the energy mix and reduces pressures on the transmission grid. Labour will deploy more distributed production capacity through our Local Power Plan. Great British Energy will partner with energy companies, local authorities, and co-operatives to install thousands of clean power projects, through a combination of onshore wind, solar, and hydropower projects. We will invite communities to come forward with projects, and work with local leaders and devolved governments to ensure local people benefit directly from this energy production."

Extracts from labour manifeso:

"To deliver our clean power mission, Labour will work with the private sector to double onshore wind, triple solar power, and quadruple offshore wind by 2030. We will invest in carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and marine energy, and ensure we have the long-term energy storage our country needs. A new Energy Independence Act will establish the framework for Labour’s energy and climate policies."

"Labour will maintain a strategic reserve of gas power stations to guarantee security of supply. We will ensure a phased and responsible transition in the North Sea that recognises the proud history of our offshore industry and the brilliance of its workforce, particularly in Scotland and the North East of England, and the ongoing role of oil and gas in our energy mix.

We will embrace the future of energy production and storage which will make use of existing offshore infrastructure and the skills of our offshore workforce. Labour will not revoke existing licences and we will partner with business and workers to manage our existing fields for the entirety of their lifespan. Crucially, oil and gas production in the North Sea will be with us for decades to come, and the North Sea will be managed in a way that does not jeopardise jobs. And our offshore workers will lead the world in the industries of the future."

Source: https://labour.org.uk/change/make-britain-a-clean-energy-superpower/

You're still less foolhardy than me. Granted, I just don't care anymore. It's money I can lose.

Niether do I.

I've learnt the hard way to gauge a stock's potential by what its most pessimistic long-term investors say. When the most pessimistic long-time posters are more upbeat, then I take note more. Same thing happened with ITM around 2020, so it’s a useful rule of thumb to have IMO. Long term investors are more likely to have been burnt initially, so are a lot more level-headed about the prospects of a company.

100,000 shares. Not that far off now, so should get to it sooner than I was expecting. Don't plan to add more after that.

I'm going to continue to accumilate up until I get to my target. Will probably take a few months, but I might as well at this point. I've not much to loose that I want to loose.

Any takes on what's happened to make it 5.5m? I don't think there has been any substantial changes in our current situation (in fact, I thought we were slightly better).

I think at this point, we're just going to have to wait for labour to get in. I've looked on some of the investor presentations from NOVA innovation, and Kier Starmer directly mentioned them as an exemplar company for potentially what he wants to do with tidal. I'd rather it be SAE, but given our real estate at Meygen and the CfD we seem to keep getting, as well as Labour potentially making in roads into Scotland, we could see some sort of a funding mechanism coming for us or our potential partners. Granted, I don't trust the current labour party with this sort of thing and they seem to capitulate to pressure easily.

No, I agree with what you say about tidal stream. This SHOULD be the case. The issue however from a political angle, is politicals often like big eye-catching projects as PR stunts. Then when reality hits, such projects are often overdue and overpriced compared to if they had done it in small increments (See. HS2). However, maybe you are right in the sense of a rising tide lifts all boats.

Like others here, I am just annoyed with all the sod's law moments the company has had to endure. I do agree management have done exceedingly well given the circumstances (even if they have had to act rather ruthlessly and make incredibly difficult decisions to keep our heads above water).

It will be interesting to see how things unfold, but part of me is cautiously optimistic in the medium to long run.