Member Info for StarBright

Plenty of positives in this for shareholders:

- Increased diversification by country / economy

- Increased diversification by supermarket chain

- Additional exposure to uncapped inflationary rent increases

- Positive funding spread for debt component

SSV II appears to have been launched by hiving off 9 small investments from SSIT into a new vehicle, in which SSIT is (today) the only holder.

Seraphim put out a press release announcing the "close" of their new fund, SSV II. If I were a cynical investor I'd point out that this is nonsense, smoke and mirrors. The new fund has only one holder (SSIT), no new capital was raised, and no new investments were made.

Of course the new fund can be marketed to investors looking for additional exposure to SpaceTech. Holders of SSIT might prefer to see those investors buying SSIT in the secondary market, but there you go....

Not impressed, but happy to re-educated if I have misunderstood.

Interesting RNS from GRID today with quite a lot of detail on BESS revenues post the marketplace changes made in Q1. Key points:

"Revenues since 11 March 2024 have improved due to:

1) The launch of Balancing Reserve (BR), a new reserve product which has launched initially with a small volume of 400MW. Reserve requirements in Great Britain are for several gigawatts (GW) every day and this level will grow as renewable generation increases (as this drives up the volatility of supply). As the ESO launches a new suite of reserve products through 2024, including Quick Reserve (QR) in summer 2024, we expect to see the Reserve volume that BESS can compete for increase.

2) The ESO changing the '15-minute rule' for BESS, whereby the maximum duration of any BESS trade in the BM was limited to 15 minutes, to a '30-minute rule'. This change was required to deliver BR but is also leading to a greater use of BESS assets, although to date it has not led to a meaningful reduction in skip rates.

3) Improvements in wholesale markets, driven largely by a return of negative prices. This has led to increased trading spreads and the return of a second cycle opportunity in most days. Flat daytime prices over the winter mostly limited BESS assets to lower cycling. The rise of solar generation in warmer months means negative prices in the middle of the day, as well as overnight, creates two distinct trading cycles, in turn leading to improved revenue opportunities. Negative prices occur when renewable generation needs to be curtailed. Through mid-April 2024, GB has experienced more than three times the number of negative prices than at the same point in any of the prior four years. The trend of increasing negative prices is expected to continue as renewable penetration increases."

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/GRID/bess-portfolio-revenue-update/16437429

Yes re Jefferies. A former colleague (who’s still working) called them for me. The long post below is a fair representation of what he reports. J may well have a house view on the rates curve that they are required to use for discount rates btw….

I added 30k to my holding. Thank you Jefferies.

-6%. No obvious external reason. Perhaps a sale trade being worked through?

Serious question:

Has this RNS told us anything that we didn't already know? Given that "It works" has been an article of faith here for many months.

Will anything in the RNS constitute "new news" as far as the professional investor audience is concerned?

Will anything in the RNS constitute "new news" as far as the BP audience is concerned?

Or is it in reality merely a confirmation of information that should be considered to have been priced-in for some time?

This is good news for the UK component of GSF's revenue.

https://modoenergy.com/research/gb-benchmark-index-battery-energy-storage-march-2024-revenue

@alibaba42 - I agree with your explanation of how revenue rates are calculated. GSF (and the other BESS funds) could do much more to help investors understand their impenetrable jargon IMHO.

Thanks for sharing that.

I’ve been adding here since early Feb. Commodities complex looks primed for a breakout move over the next few years.

@Rock8 - it’s just not that simple.

If you’re going to post on topics where you have neither knowledge or experience (as is clearly the case where the TC is concerned), perhaps you should at least post in the form of questions. This rather than unequivocally asserting your misunderstandings. For example “Won’t he have to buy the whole company at 79p if he crosses the 30% threshold?”

Just a thought.

Sorry - hit “Post” too soon.

Good Friday and Easter Monday are “Holiday” days, so no trading at all. The “irregular” days (each with half-day trading) are Christmas Eve and New Years Eve.

I hope this clears that up!

@Driving - market is closed all day tomorrow.

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/equities-trading/business-days

Not sure I’d conclude much from the lack of trades! Volume here has been SO thin for years, bar the odd exceptional day. I suspect most holders have bottom-drawered / forgotten about their ZIOC shares…

This will only change with REAL news - which could arrive at any moment. Having said that my money is on further delay and obfuscation. I will be delighted to be proved wrong!

So OMI will pay $15m + 1% NSR for 51% they already own…

I hope OMI aren’t paying for the “ ...detailed legal analysis and recommendations..” that you provided to them. If you were a retained lawyer advising on this, your professional embarrassment would be acute.

@breaktwister…

On January 23rd you said: “ MMA are trying to get OMI to "buy out their 51%", which would be the dumbest thing ever given OMI ALREADY HAVE 100% ownership.”

Yesterday, OMI said: “ The Company is pleased to announce that on March 22, 2023 it entered into a non-binding letter of intent with MMA, that provides for a transaction pursuant to which Orosur would repurchase, directly or indirectly, MMA's interest in the Project, resulting in Orosur having a 100% ownership of the Project ("Transaction").”

So you were 100% wrong. MMA HAD indeed earned a 51% interest in the project, and OMI is going to have to pay to get it back - as I said.

No need for you to grovel, but I’ll accept your apology.

Nah - LSE’s motley crew of ambulance-chasing pumpers haven’t shown up here yet, but that could be about to change. The appearance of the Earl (or Ria or Degsy) usually confirms the observation… ;>

Looking more closely at the RNS, it says:

“The total consideration for these transactions was settled via the issuance of 9,700,000 new Ordinary Shares in the capital of the Company (the "Ordinary Shares") issued at 111.0 pence per Ordinary Share[1], PLUS CASH consideration.”

How much cash? Why hasn’t the actual purchase price been disclosed? I will ask IR…

@DrRemington, @PortfolioPower

Nothing more to pay for the 51% is NOT the same as no requirement to pay anything until production. Who is going to pay for all of the further exploration and development costs. The $2m OMI has will be earmarked for L&B as you well know.

There are massive cash costs to fund ahead of any production, as you well know… To suggest otherwise, “No requirement to pay anything until into production” is just cynical ramping, as you well know…

When will the minute-by-minute updates on Rob1967 and Bhargav’s “top-ups” recommence?

@Garydav2 - how do you know that the board aren’t considering a bid (even multiple bids!) right now?

TC Rule 3.1 says that “…the board of the offeree company must obtain competent independent advice as to whether the financial terms of any offer (including any alternative offer) are fair and reasonable and the substance of such advice must be made known to its shareholders.”

Perhaps that advice process is underway right now?

Tick tock, as you might say…

“No requirement to pay anything until into production.”

That is a shamefully baseless misrepresentation @PortfolioPower…