Member Info for Piltick

Yes Risky, it's quite straightforward. It's an automatic system, so if the transaction is at a price above mid price, then it is assigned a "Buy" flag by the system. It the transaction is at a price lower than mid price, then it is assigned a "Sell" flag by the system. And if the transaction price is exactly at mid price, then it is shown black, i.e. neutral.

So the Buy or Sell flags are not given to each transaction by the MMs.

BUT...of course the MMs set the overall Buy and Sell prices, so they can move those prices up or down to suit themselves, and by doing so it is possible to manipulate what the system will automatically flag as "Buy" or "Sell".

Clear as mud?

That's right Mucksy, the AGM must be no later than 6 months following the y/e date, so 30th April, and they have to give notice of 21 days, so notice of AGM no later than 9th April.

Oh well, every little helps!

Good points mucksy!

I think I would want to know how they come by the valuation of £12 million - is it based on future estimated earnings or some other calculation.

Does anyone have any idea when the 2019 awards are announced?

OK, I see where you're coming from stokey. That schedule is assuming that W2T pay for the capital cost of the DMG unit. According to their calculations, all of the revenue and costs, and funding, is going through W2T. The site owner is not paying the cost of building the DMG unit, W2T are, in the example given here. So the site owner might get paid a rental? Or take a share in the project?

I'm not entirely clear exactly what W2T have put in their report you find to be so misleading. I agree that it could have been written more clearly, but I'm sure that it's not deliberately designed to be misleading.

If your concern is about the 80% of revenue, then I can't find anywhere in the document that states that 80% of the revenue goes too W2T.

stokey: The idea is that there will be a SPV (JV company) which will be owned by W2T and another, and the SPV will be the "Vehicle" for obtaining the funding and paying the capital expenditure for the building / purchase of the DMG unit. It's not someone else outside of the SPV who is going to be buying the DMG, that's the whole purpose of having a SPV.

So it's not W2T who get to keep the other 80% of the revenue, it's the SPV who will be running the operation of the DMG unit. Yes I know the document is misleading, but of course there is no way whatsoever that the revenue from the operation can be handed out to someone who hasn't contributed to the project by taking a shareholding in the SPV.

Bear in mind that there are costs to take out of that 80% i.e. operating costs, depreciation on the capital cost of the DMG, rent and rates perhaps, interest on the funding loan, etc. That will leave Net Profit which will be shared among the shareholders of the SPV.

Well, that's my take on it anyway.

There seems to be some confusion about the relationship between PHE and W2T, especially relating to the 20% licence fee payable to PHE. Take a look at my post on Tuesday at 23:24 where I attempt to explain it.

And of course I should have said that that is my take on it, but you should still do as telephoneman suggests and email Howard White direct.

Hi Stokey: Take a look at page 16 of the IPO document where all of the figures are shown. Remember that these figures are based on the FOAK (first unit) and on the assumption that it is W2T's project, and that W2T are paying all of the capital expenditure costs and all of the operating costs. So PHE gets a licence fee of 20% of the NET revenue (i.e. after deducting the operating costs) and all other revenue and costs remain in the Project (the SPV).

PHE have no involvement in the Project, other than getting 20% NET revenue as a licence fee.

Other projects in the future may be structured differently, so for example PHE might be involved as a partner / shareholder in some of the projects and not in others.

So I don't believe that the document is misleading in any way, but it is important to read it very carefully and to fully understand the financial structure that is being proposed.

Seems to me that there is no-one else "in the running" so I assume that unless something goes wrong, AP have got it.

Just for info, the latest date for the AGM is 30th April, 6 months following the end of the Financial Year.
And they have to give 21 days notice, so the latest date for the announcement is 9th April.

That's my understanding as well, telephoneman. I recall someone explaining (may have been DR, but can't remember) that the quantity of steam is one of the variables that is used (temperature being another) to control the constituents of the syngas that is produced e.g. the proportion of hydrogen.

It sounds like something out of a science fiction story!

Ah, OK, different sort of problem then!

chippyjo: "Probably it’s too leaky..." (hydrogen): I'm not sure if hydrogen is as "leaky" as it is sometimes made out to be. If Toyota, and other car manufacturers, have been able to develop fuel tanks for hydrogen in their cars then they must have been able to overcome this "leaky" problem one way or another. And of course we know that there are lots of buses now running on hydrogen all over the place, even in Aberdeen!

It also avoids putting more strain on the national grid which is already under pressure, and will be under increasing pressure in the future.

That's my understanding also, Stokey. The HoT (used to be called Heads of Agreement) will be a summary of what has been agreed so far, but possibly a bit short of detail. As quoted by Gadams in the previous post, it has still to be discussed, probably amended here and there, and then signed. It is at that point that the lawyers get involved to draw up the detailed contract in legal jargon, for the parties to ultimately agree and (hopefully) sign, and then they can get on with it!

All of that could take a few months, especially when the lawyers get involved.