|
|
Post by optymystic on Sept 19, 2018 9:25:52 GMT
Ofgem appear to be answerable to nobody. That is standard government practice this last thirty years or so. These organizations are set up as arms length agencies, or 'businesses' with well remunerated boards of directors among the great and good in order to ensure that when anything goes wrong in e.g. a Grenfell Tower scenario, in the words of Albert and the Lion, "no one was to blame". This preposterous state of affairs reached its zenith when Jeremy Hunt was recently awarded a major extension of his 'responsibilities' as Secretary of State for Health. The absurdity rested in the fact that one of the characteristics of Jeremy Hunt's management of Health was his insistence that whatever went wrong was not his responsibility at all, but that of one of the plethora of agencies to which he had devolved powers.
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977 
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Oct 16, 2018 18:35:42 GMT
The update on 24-Sep-18 from the directors of M********* V***** CHP expected to complete work on the proposal within 2-3 weeks, so we might have expected to have heard something by yesterday 15-Oct-18.
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Oct 17, 2018 16:17:38 GMT
Oh dear, they want more £££ to get it going again.
|
|
jj
Member of DD Central
Jolly Jammy
Posts: 320
Likes: 358
|
Post by jj on Oct 17, 2018 16:55:27 GMT
If they want money why not knock at Ofgem's door for compensation ?
Don't see why I have to pay for an error apparently made by Ofgem.
|
|
|
|
Post by optymystic on Oct 17, 2018 22:10:58 GMT
Don't see why I have to pay for an error apparently made by Ofgem.
That's one of the inherent risks of the subsidy farming industry i.e. the flow of subsidy is not always predictable. That's what you got your 12% for.
|
|
jj
Member of DD Central
Jolly Jammy
Posts: 320
Likes: 358
|
Post by jj on Oct 18, 2018 5:34:25 GMT
Don't see why I have to pay for an error apparently made by Ofgem.
That's one of the inherent risks of the subsidy farming industry i.e. the flow of subsidy is not always predictable. That's what you got your 12% for. I don't accept that. The loan defaulted on a technicality. A technicality that should not have happened. If there were something wrong with the work/build I accept.
The other biomess loan was worst in my eyes as the loan defaulted soon after it was lauched. The equivalent of a 6 month loan defaulting on the next day.
What happened should not have happened. Where is the rolling of heads ? There isn't any. So why is it us who have to pay for it ?
|
|
|
|
Post by optymystic on Oct 18, 2018 7:05:16 GMT
The other biomess loan was worst in my eyes as the loan defaulted soon after it was lauched.
I'm fortunate because I only invested in CHP, so the only hint that there was a problem with the other debenture was the suspicion that neither was being traded. The fact of there being two different applications for subsidy from closely linked companies with accompanying diagrams actually showing loops between must have made Ofgem suspicious of a carousel fraud i.e. energy going round and round a subsidy loop. I accept that is not what the diagrams mean, but you can understand why Ofgem got twitchy about it, particularly in the light of "cash for ash"".
|
|
scc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 214
Likes: 163
|
Post by scc on Oct 18, 2018 7:41:27 GMT
I'm inclined to agree with optmystic. My understanding is that the 12% wasn't reflective of the risks around offgem interpreting the rules differently to previously, but rather that of new build in general. That said, I think the bird has flown subsidy wise on new build biomass in this form. It's going to be interesting to see what their proposal for getting started looks like as presumably they've spent money on legal advice as well as mothballing.
|
|
beh
Member of DD Central
Posts: 175
Likes: 77
|
Post by beh on Nov 30, 2018 19:24:37 GMT
Anyone got the pdf of the original CHP long term refinance offer from February this year?
|
|
|
|
Post by justdabbling on Nov 30, 2018 21:55:00 GMT
I think so, dated 31 Jan
|
|
beh
Member of DD Central
Posts: 175
Likes: 77
|
Post by beh on Dec 1, 2018 16:45:20 GMT
Ye, I'd imagine that's it, the email I have for the offer was the day after. Would you be able to upload somewhere and link it in the General DD Discussion thread please?
Mainly trying to get my head around it dropping from 8 to 5%.
Anyone else any thoughts on yesterday's proposal?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnny on Dec 1, 2018 17:54:25 GMT
I would have liked the interest owed from the 31st of January 18 until the postponement of the refinance on the 13th of March 18, or at least an acknowledgement of that interest. I thought the proposition would be a no brainer, at best all I can say is I am pondering about what to do, voting wise. I am also unsure what can be said on the forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by optymystic on Dec 1, 2018 23:35:23 GMT
1. Because I think they have us by the b**ls, I have with some misgivings voted in favour and paid up my 20%. 2. I only have visibility of what has happened to CHP, I don't get to see what happened to the Biomass debentures to which I did not subscribe. This has more than a hint of divide and rule. It is not apparent to me that the interests of the debenture holders would not be better served with one single set of debentures rather than two. 3. The debenture holders are being heavily baled in, asked to stump up extra cash for the chance of getting their original cash back. The directors and equity holders retain control and their equity, which in administration or insolvency would also be wiped out as well as our cash. It seems to me that the secrecy and lack of transparency means that the interests of the debenture holders are not being represented at all. 4. The debentures will not be marketable without a stonking discount until MV actually starts to pay out in Summer 2020. How much are you going to get for a debenture which in late 2019 hasn't paid out for eighteen months and might pay out some time next year?
5. One of the directors will be 84 by the time the debentures are finally redeemed. He presumably intends to sell on his interest during that period, which may or may not be congruent with the interests of the debenture holders. 6. If the working lifetime of the CHP and Biomass boilers is less than twenty years from the time the boilers were brought into use, the business will need to be recapitalised before the debentures are redeemed. 7. One of the reasons I didn't buy into the recent A*********e share issue was that I knew I might need cash to bale in MV. Did the A*********e share issue particulars indicate that somewhere between 5 and 10% of the assets under A*********e management are under water? I don't recall the discussion.
8. The Pi chart shows 56% of projected revenues coming from subsidy farming. No wonder Ofgem is twitchy.
More to follow
|
|
|
|
Post by justdabbling on Dec 2, 2018 12:39:43 GMT
Anyone got the pdf of the original CHP long term refinance offer from February this year? Just tried to send this as requested but the file is too big.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Dec 2, 2018 15:24:24 GMT
I imagine some of the investors will be dead by the time these debentures mature. Probably including my Mum, who is 84. I talked her into this investment as she wanted to do something short term and of benefit to the environment.
I have a question re: "The heat generated by both our CHP units and biomass boilers will
be sold to B** B****** which has committed to buying all of it at
a contracted price of X.XXp per kWh which increases each year
in line with the RPI".
Why then are the debenture interest rates not also linked to the RPI?
|
|
