Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[sjeunson]

....... because the new tidal generators are producing cheaper and more reliable supplies and what current Viking Energy produces is not saleable.

 

Out of interest which tidal turbines are these?

Problems with the blades last I heard on the AK1000 in Orkney :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-11492829

 

Exactly my point. They're getting better all the time but they're not viable as of yet.

[Para Handy]

You can hear the sound of the wallets being opened by all who voted for the VE proposal

[Skunnered]

Ref. various postings from Ghostrider: The fear of SSE buying Burradale's shares in the windmill venture and hence gaining overall control is unfounded. SSE and Burradale do not hold shares in the same company.

 

The top company is called Viking Energy Ltd. and is owned 90% by CT and 10% by Burradale (or whatever they are called).

 

The Operating Company is a Joint Venture company called Viking Energy and is owned 50% by Viking Energy Ltd. and 50% by SSE.

 

So there is no way that SSE can get a controlling interest at any level. Even if they bought Burradale's 10% shares in the top company, they would still only control 10% of the top company, and they would still be equal partners at the next level down at the JV level.

 

I explained all of this in more detail on page 132 of this thread.

[Ghostrider]

^^ Yes, but I'm having a hard time resolving that, and this:

 

Viking Energy is a 50:50 partnership between Viking Energy Ltd and SSE Viking Ltd. SSE Viking Ltd is a subsidiary of Scottish and Southern Energy plc. Viking Energy Ltd is the company established to represent the interests of the Shetland community in large-scale windfarm development in Shetland.

 

The Shetland community is represented by Viking Energy Limited, which is 90% owned by the Shetland Charitable Trust, the organisation set up to manage funds on behalf of the community. The remaining 10% is held by the people who developed Burradale Wind Farm.

 

As I read that, Viking Energy is the top company and the operating company, and comprises of a 50/50 JV between SSE Viking Ltd. and Viking Energy Ltd.

 

SSE Viking Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of SSE plc, and Viking Energy Ltd. is a 90/10 partnership between the SCT and the Burradale shareholders. Thus it follows that Viking Energy is 50% owned by SSE plc, 45% owned by the SCT, and 5% owned by the Burradale shareholders.

 

If what you're saying is correct, then that statement quoted from Viking Energy's site, is very misleading at best, and downright wrong at worst.

 

Tell me how I'm supposed to read that statement so that Viking Energy Ltd. and not Viking Energy, is the top company?

[stilldellin]

Just been oot fur a wander roond da hoose, boannie nicht, flat calm, NAE WIND !...

[Mattie]

Ah windmills and a lovely tune too by Dusty!

So the Council voted on the Viking Energy Windfarm.

And approved it's go ahead.

Out of 22 Councillors..

Nine voted in favour.. Three not with abstention by Jonathan Wills! Seven refused to vote due to their conflict of interest.. While two couldn't turn up!!

Democratic Shetand eh?

So the prosperous revenue to be generated by the Viking Windfarm.

Will this save Scalloway Juniour High from closure?

[Graeme_Storey]

@ Ghostrider

 

I have to say I agree 100% with your interpretation of the breakdown.

 

Using such similar names might be construed (by a cynical person) as a deliberate ploy to confuse and (perish the thought) mislead....

[Skunnered]

^^ Yes, but I'm having a hard time resolving that, and this:

 

Viking Energy is a 50:50 partnership between Viking Energy Ltd and SSE Viking Ltd. SSE Viking Ltd is a subsidiary of Scottish and Southern Energy plc. Viking Energy Ltd is the company established to represent the interests of the Shetland community in large-scale windfarm development in Shetland.

 

The Shetland community is represented by Viking Energy Limited, which is 90% owned by the Shetland Charitable Trust, the organisation set up to manage funds on behalf of the community. The remaining 10% is held by the people who developed Burradale Wind Farm.

 

As I read that, Viking Energy is the top company and the operating company, and comprises of a 50/50 JV between SSE Viking Ltd. and Viking Energy Ltd.

 

SSE Viking Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of SSE plc, and Viking Energy Ltd. is a 90/10 partnership between the SCT and the Burradale shareholders. Thus it follows that Viking Energy is 50% owned by SSE plc, 45% owned by the SCT, and 5% owned by the Burradale shareholders.

 

If what you're saying is correct, then that statement quoted from Viking Energy's site, is very misleading at best, and downright wrong at worst.

 

Tell me how I'm supposed to read that statement so that Viking Energy Ltd. and not Viking Energy, is the top company?

 

Actually, I think that VE's statement is fairly clear, although I admit that it would have been better to use different names for each business. The statement needs to be read carefully so as not to mix up the two companies.

 

Viking Energy Limited is the top company set up to represent the Shetland community, and is described in the second paragraph of VE's statement. It is owned 90% by the CT and 10% by Burradale. SSE has no involvement in this company whatsoever. This top company (Viking Energy Limited) will not own the wind farm, nor operate it. It is purely a Holding Company.

 

Next level down: There is then a 50/50 Joint Venture company called Viking Energy (note the absence of the "Limited" after the name). This is the business that will own the wind farm and operate it. This is the business that is owned 50% by the top company Viking Energy Limited, and 50% by the SSE subsidiary. This is also the business that will sell the power to (presumably) SSE under a separate contract, about which we know nothing because the details have not been divulged.

 

This is the company which is described in the first paragraph of VE's statement. In other words, they have described the lower operating company in their first paragraph, and the top holding company in their second paragraph.

 

So even if Burradale sold their shares in Viking Energy Limited to SSE, then SSE still wouldn't have control at any level, neither in the top company, nor in the operating company.

 

And you can't mix the shareholdings in both companies together because it doesn't work that way. It is important to regard each of the two companies as completely separate and independent entities. Each one has to hold separate Board Meetings (Directors) and Shareholders' meetings. These meetings have to be recorded by Company Law. They are completely separate legal entities even if they have the same Directors.

 

I hope this helps.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Laura Carse of Pelamis said at the meeting yesterday that the interconnector had to be under-signed by the developer.

 

What this entails for the CT i don't know yet.

[Guest]

Since the planning department now seems to be completely irrelevant, there's a good place to start making cuts if the SIC wants to save money.

[Infiltrator]

Possibly of interest here.

 

Reuters today:

 

Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:43am GMT

 

Shares in Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE) (SSE.L) are among the top UK blue-chip .FTSE risers, adding 1.2 percent, with traders citing takeover talk surrounding the British utility.

 

It's up on "bid rumours yesterday and today," Alwyn Phillips, a sales trader at IG Index, says.

 

"(The talk is) very vague (and there's) not much substance behind it," he says.

 

SSE on Tuesday sticks to its policy of declining to comment on market speculation.

 

The Financial Times says in its market report on Tuesday SSE has long been rumoured to be a potential target for Vattenfall [VATN.UL], Sweden's state-owned energy producer

[unlinkedstudent]

Skunnered - you too have hit the nail on the head - company law. There is nothing in company law to stop others becoming directors of a company - what happens if they die, for example? Yes, I know I've used a lot of "ifs" in my posts but as the company agreements are not in the public domain (Has anyone done a Freedom of Information request yet?) then we simply don't know how well the "community stake" (*chokes) is protected.

 

Whilst not a limited company at present, it may well become one in the future or an LLP or even PLC.

 

Say all the directors who are also councillors don't get re-elected - what happens to their shareholdings then? It is all well and good to assume that they will be transferred to new councillors but what if the new councillors refused to accept them? What would happen then?

[Skunnered]

^^There seems to be a general belief that the Councillors who are Directors of the VE project are also shareholders. This cannot be. They wouldn't be allowed to be shareholders simply because they are Councillors. All of the shareholders are corporate entities.

 

Even if the directors were to change, for any reason, that does not affect the shareholdings. Shares and Directors are separate things.

[Ichorus]

I hope this is approved. It will be great for Shetland and any potential Children I may have in the future.

[stilldellin]

stilldellin, any idea what the cost of one of those is likely to be, as opposed to the cost of a 1MW onshore wind turbine?

 

(I know it's just a prototype, but have the manufacturers given any indication of the likely cost once it does go into production?)

No AT, I have no idea about costing comparisons per Mw, it seems the intention is to install up to 400 of them. ( I wish them well ). What I do know is that other than when there is slack water they keep on turning even when there is no wind !.