focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
Agreed, desperate! That RNS will if anything solidify the remaining shareholders sentiment to hold out. Either it was a legal requirement or another miscalculation by the board, because I for one feel much more comfortable that we might see a more acceptable outcome.
I am still silently sitting and waiting and I am sure there are a lot like me. I don't think we'll get any player noise or movement until the results (23rd?). I am waiting for these and the probable downplay of the situation at Stella, no matter as its expected so no effect. Thereafter all the news is out so time to decide, and you are perfectly correct in that I watching and wanting to see "some declarations of intention from some of the larger shareholders". If that comes, the remaining smaller PIs will rally around it and hopefully force an improved offer. If the institutions don't declare, then I can see at least some selling in the market to protect ones interests and move onto already identified plays. Towards the end of the month to tax deadline will be critical.
ADVFN: ........ From the FT: However, one top 10 shareholder, Paul Mumford at Cavendish Asset Management, who holds a 3 per cent stake in Ithaca, questioned the timing of the deal and said it was on the “low” side. Mr Mumford said the management team, led by Les Thomas, a former executive at oilfield services company, Wood Group, had put Ithaca in a “healthy” position. “Ithaca has a bright future on the basis that it has already reduced its cost of production from over US$40 a barrel to US$20 a barrel, and from this month will increase average production from 11,000 barrels a day to 20,000 as the Greater Stella field comes on stream,” he added. Mr Mumford told the Financial Times he would “think hard” about an offer closer to 150p per Ithaca share — a 25 per cent premium on the recommended offer — but stressed that he would like to keep hold of his shares in the company, given the potential presented by the Stella development. ....... Not over yet.
Vlad as right. The danger was the low ball take-out before first oil. Only £1.50 is acceptable right now. Been in this years and disappointed by the final outcome.
Werberone, I am also heavily invested in HUR and originally posted the below on that forum as I thought it more pertinent. According their website (https://www.chrysaor.com/assets.php) they have the following interest: •50% interest in East Solan Basin •50% interest in South Solan Basin •100% interest West Solan Basin Was there any rumours about the outcome of the Chrysaor drill (3-4 months ago)?
Some interesting comments from the soon to be largest independent in the North Sea. ""The North Sea is at a point of generational change," said Chrysaor Chairman Linda Cook. For a company such as Chrysaor, the deal brings the promise of steady revenue from production of 115,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day and the potential for new oil finds from interests in several North Sea blocks. The company is expected to take on around 400 Shell staff on completion of the deal, expected in the second half of 2017, making Chrysaor one of the largest producers of oil and gas in the U.K. Chrysaor said it plans to sanction drilling activity to extend the life of fields it will operate and has ambitions to make more acquisitions." See also: https://www.chrysaor-future.com/en/about/ for facts & figures on reserves. They are backed by some big funds and it seems they are not finished yet.....
C.Eng, Many thanks I had completely missed the capacity factor.... as I mentioned this is not field of engineering! Hmmm, that puts a very different complexion on proceedings for me. What I don't like is that I've been digging and digging whilst I consider investment and the company seems very tight lipped about all things financial i.e. such as opex, revenue, expected uptime, capacity factor(!) etc. etc. Such non-disclosure is generally not a good thing.
@ Kiwi69, I don't believe the uptime of stream tidal turbines is as high as 20 / 24 hours. I originally followed Carnegie who mentioned 14 / 24 hours, but was being conservative at 12 / 24 hours. Actually the following statement gives 66% uptime as realistic for scale system operating now; so 16 hours uptime (max.) " SeaGen is the world-leading prototype tidal energy turbine designed and deployed by MCT. It is the largest grid-connected marine renewable energy system in the world and which last month exceeded 1000 hours of commercial operation in Northern Ireland’s Strangford Lough. It is the first tidal current energy system in the world to have achieved this milestone. The 1.2MW tidal current turbine, which was deployed in April 2008, has achieved a capacity factor of 66% and so far delivered more than 800MWh of electricity into the National Grid.". Secondly I already factored the ROCs in Phase 1A to give total income of £300 MWh as per my post last Thursday " ARL website state "ROC prices have historically been relatively stable, ranging between £42 and £54 per ROC (both nominal) from 2002 to 2011. ROCs are expected to contribute approximately 70 – 80% of the revenue for Phase 1A." So revenue per MW in Phase 1A is 5 x ROCs (assumed as previous £44.77) and taking this to be 75% of income give approx. £300 / MWh." Re-jigging the financial position: In year 2017 we have 4 turbines kicking out 6MW for 16 hours a day for 365 days earning £305 / MWh. Roughly £10.2M revenue. + £2.8M consultancy. Now debiting Opex, say = £1.5M; Debt of £23M @ 8% interest = £1.8M, Corporate = £5M (1/2 year results). So basically we turn a profit of £3.7M which is a bit nicer. In 2018 we should has additional 6 turbines paid for with the grant. Net debt is basically the same but with increased revenue now totalling £25.5 + £2.8M consultancy. Assuming Opex (assume 20%?) = £5M; Debt of £23M @ 8% = £1.8M, Corporate = £6M (more staff etc.). So now in two years (End 2018) we turn a profit of £15.5M. Actually those figures look a whole lot better. I have no idea how the market will value future revenues etc.
There seem to be more interest coming across from the HUR thread, so I am going to continue the above topic as I am not yet invested. I can’t find anything on OPEX and suggested profit profiles from ATL. Its fine to say something is worth £100M because someone paid £2M for 2%, but is that realistic. Right now the company has £23M in debt and no revenue. That is going to change soon, but Meygen is a capital intensive infrastructure project for which profit is down the road. It is highly dependent on CfD terms and that they will change in a post Brexit environment. However Phase 1B is however funded with a grant 17M Euros for 6 turbines which should be on-stream close of 2017 guaranteeing a CfD of £305/ MWh. Phase 3C funding is yet to found but I very much doubt any further grants will be coming from the EU due to political decisions. So OK where does that leave us. In year 2017 we have 4 turbines kicking out 6MW for 12 hours a day (assumed, possibly 14 hours) for 365 days earning £305 / MWh. Roughly £7.7M revenue. Now debiting Opex (assume 20%?) = £1.5M; Debt of £23M @ 8% interest = £1.8M, Corporate = £5M (1/2 year results). So basically we turn a loss of £0.7M. In 2018 we should has additional 6 turbines paid for with the grant. Net debt is basically the same but with increased revenue now totalling £19.3. Assuming Opex (assume 20%?) = £3.8M; Debt of £23M @ 8% = £1.8M, Corporate = £6M (more staff etc.). So now in two years (End 2018) we turn a profit of £7.5M. Now we have Phase 2C (45 turbines – 10 in 2019 & 35 in 2020) which needs financing. Assuming it costs 17M Euros for 6 turbines @ Phase 2B and pro rata we need additional £30M in 2019 + £100M in 2020. That is a lot of debt for a company turning £7-8M/annum profit. Without showing the sums, end of 2019 will be £53M debt and profit £20M & end of 2020 will be £153M debt and profit £64M. Basically even if we consider a very generous CfD of £305/MWh it would take another 3 years to become debt free and that is not considering the stated goal of additional 200 turbines (£500M) by 2023. What I am not sure about is how the market will consider that debt profile and how the share price would move accordingly. This feels like a very long term share, perhaps slow burner. I like this company, and the technology and its seems like this could be a first mover situation before a whole heard of copycat companies (including the Chinese) cotton on to the potential. The reason I am not already in this is because I can’t get my head around the economic profile i.e. financial risk considering post Brexit future, financing cost and risk of offshore large infrastructure project significantly over running. I admit this field is not my area of expertise, but I am an engineer and use to running large scale technical infrastructure
Kiwi, ARL website state "ROC prices have historically been relatively stable, ranging between £42 and £54 per ROC (both nominal) from 2002 to 2011. ROCs are expected to contribute approximately 70 – 80% of the revenue for Phase 1A." So revenue per MW in Phase 1A is 5 x ROCs (assumed as previous £44.77) and taking this to be 75% of income give approx. £300 / MWh. So PPA must be around £75 / MWh. I read recently that DONG energy have now reduced new bidding to as low as £75 / MWh for offshore wind projects, so the figures seem comparable. Ultimately the total income for tidal in Phase 1A is very similar to later CfD which will be £305 / MWh. Any opinions? I am not sure about Phase 1B, since ROCs are due to be phased out in March 2017 for new capacity. Since Atlantis will not bring that capacity online until end of 2017, will it fall under ROCs or CfD? I still haven't found anything about OPEX so I am still struggling to understand the profit profile through the phases. Can anyone else enlighten on the various subjects over the past few days.
Regarding the acquisition of Sound of Islay, it was originally expected that construction would commence in 2016, alongside the second phase of the MeyGen project. However I can't seem to find the current status of this project on the ARL website. Does anyone know if it has been reported officially or otherwise that project has been progressed to a certain extent or is it still pending as expected to start once we progress from Phase 1a to 1b of MeyGen?
Hi All, New to this share. and considering investing. This website seems the most active for ARL so I’ve registered here (normally I frequent ADVFN and only lurk here) to see if I can find out some pertinent details. Funding. Phase 1 A looks on track for completed by year end. Now from what I can see the last placing, "Phase 1B will add a further 6MW of capacity, followed by 74MW of capacity in Phase 1C bringing the aggregate installed capacity at the site to 86MW of which Phase 1B has €17 million of grant funding attached. The proceeds of the Placing are intended to be used to assist in bringing Phase 1B to financial close and to accelerate development of Phase 1C to achieve financial close in 2017." Two points. Is phase 1C actually fully funded or does it required additional grants or placing? When is considered Phase 1B can be operational and more importantly regarding time scale for 1C; is it considered realistic to bring that number of turbines on-stream by end of 2017? OPEX I have been trying to understand the near term profit profile. There was a good post some time ago which I will repeat for clarity. "In summary though: Tidal power receives 5 ROCs per MWh. The price per ROC for 2016-17 is £44.77. So a very simple calculation for say a 1MW turbine which has an estimated capacity factor of 50% (wind turbines have a capacity factor of 30% and I know tidal turbines are more active) : 1MW *50%* 24hrs*365days=4380MWh. So for 6MW (phase 1a) and 5 ROCs at £44.77 each gives a revenue of £5,883,000. The life of each turbine is 25 years and I've read somewhere that maintenance will be carried out every 5 years so OPEX should be low. Meygen documents from 2011 suggest a target cost of £4.7m/MW which is higher than I would like to see. I'm going to get in contact with the company and try to dig for information on turbine capacity factor, CAPEX, OPEX, etc." Considering the above, there is scant profit for Phase 1A, as the quoted OPEX figures look very high. Possibly they actually relate to completed phases 1A through 1C and not Phase 1A/1B alone. Can anyone enlighten with expected OPEX for the phased development? Considering further it seems Phase 1A is all above proving the technology and construction concept. Phase 1C is where the game is at profit wise. Regards, Rich