Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[crofter]

I note from Viking Energy's website that the planned equity investment for the SIC and SSE is £21 million each. A £25 shareholding won't get much of the profit!

 

But it is a 25/1000 (2.5%) share. That will get over half a million pounds profit each year if the figures are correct.

[Caeser]

From my limited knowledge of the proposed venture, the wind farm will be owned 50% Viking Energy Ltd and 50% Scottish and Southern Electricity.

 

Profits from the farm will be split likewise 50 -50 between Viking energy and SSE.

 

If the owners of Viking energy remain as originally planned, Mr Thompson and co will be entitled to receive 2.5% of the total profits each.

 

If Viking energy is to invest £21 million into the farm project, I calculate this amounts to £21,000 per ordinary share, or a personal investment of £525,000 for each of the smaller Shetland Aerogenerator directors.

 

A very large personal investment. Sounds like 'the experts' from Shetland Aerogenerators Ltd are exceptionally confident of the financial returns from the farms. Best of luck to them and I wish them well.

 

However, not a gambler you appreciate but I would put my last fiver that these people are not personally investing over 500k each.

 

So yes, that funny smell of a rat is back again!

[MuckleJoannie]

From my limited knowledge of the proposed venture, the wind farm will be owned 50% Viking Energy Ltd and 50% Scottish and Southern Electricity.

 

Profits from the farm will be split likewise 50 -50 between Viking energy and SSE.

 

If the owners of Viking energy remain as originally planned, Mr Thompson and co will be entitled to receive 2.5% of the total profits each.

 

If Viking energy is to invest £21 million into the farm project, I calculate this amounts to £21,000 per ordinary share, or a personal investment of £525,000 for each of the smaller Shetland Aerogenerator directors.

 

A very large personal investment. Sounds like 'the experts' from Shetland Aerogenerators Ltd are exceptionally confident of the financial returns from the farms. Best of luck to them and I wish them well.

 

However, not a gambler you appreciate but I would put my last fiver that these people are not personally investing over 500k each.

 

So yes, that funny smell of a rat is back again!

 

Issued Share Capital:

Ordinary

- Number of shares issued: 1000

- Aggregate nominal value of issued shares: 1000GBP

 

That means £1,000 has been invested to date. £20,999,000 to find. Caesar may be correct in assuming that the Shetland Aerogenerator will not put up £500k each. In that case they will recieve a return on their £25 initial investment. The SIC as majority shareholder will determine who puts up the money for the 20,999,000 shares still to be sold.

[Caeser]

From my limited knowledge of the proposed venture, the wind farm will be owned 50% Viking Energy Ltd and 50% Scottish and Southern Electricity.

 

Profits from the farm will be split likewise 50 -50 between Viking energy and SSE.

 

If the owners of Viking energy remain as originally planned, Mr Thompson and co will be entitled to receive 2.5% of the total profits each.

 

If Viking energy is to invest £21 million into the farm project, I calculate this amounts to £21,000 per ordinary share, or a personal investment of £525,000 for each of the smaller Shetland Aerogenerator directors.

 

A very large personal investment. Sounds like 'the experts' from Shetland Aerogenerators Ltd are exceptionally confident of the financial returns from the farms. Best of luck to them and I wish them well.

 

However, not a gambler you appreciate but I would put my last fiver that these people are not personally investing over 500k each.

 

So yes, that funny smell of a rat is back again!

 

Issued Share Capital:

Ordinary

- Number of shares issued: 1000

- Aggregate nominal value of issued shares: 1000GBP

 

That means £1,000 has been invested to date. £20,999,000 to find. Caesar may be correct in assuming that the Shetland Aerogenerator will not put up £500k each. In that case they will recieve a return on their £25 initial investment. The SIC as majority shareholder will determine who puts up the money for the 20,999,000 shares still to be sold.

 

I think there may be some confusion here between the viking energy Ltd business and the actual joint venture vehicle which will own the farm.

 

I have not seen anywhere that there will be some form of subscription for an additional 20,990,00 shares. Perhaps we will all get our chance at picking up some of the action?

 

Viking energy Ltd is apparently to invest £21million in the joint venture.

This is equity in the joint venture farming enterprise with SSE. SIC are not investing an additional £20,990,000 in Viking energy to dilute the aerogenerators guys shareholdings.

 

If everything is done correctly and legally, each of the shareholders will have to invest according to their shareholdings or Viking energy will have to go into debt to a level equal to the £21million investment in the joint venture. If viking energy goes into debt ther debt has to be covered by some form of guarantee. So we either have a £525,000 investment each or £525,000 guarantee + debt interest to pay, or perhaps more probably an excellent financial manouvre where someone else (SIC) picks up the investment tab, and the original shareholders pick up the dividends.

 

I also note on the Viking website the costs of getting to where the business has got to already is rocketing. I wonder who has picked up the bill so far.................. £1000 wouldn't go far? Maybe receivership is not far away. Creditors beware!

[trout]

Shetland Aerogenerators Ltd

 

Company Number SC136227

 

Private Company Limited By Shares

 

Principal Business Activities - SIC Codes 4011

 

Registered Office: 10 Charlotte Street, Lerwick, Shetland, ZE1 OJL

Company Secretary: Michael Henry Thomson - 10 Charlotte Street, Lerwick, Shetland, ZE1 OJL

 

Director 1: David Henry Thomson

DOB: 07/06/1976

Nationality: British

Occupation: Quantity Surveyor

 

Director 2: Gilbert Dennis Thomson

DOB: 20/05/1950

Nationality: British

Occupation: Builder

 

Director 3: Michael Henry Thomson

DOB: 03/04/1955

Nationality: British

Occupation: Quantity Surveyor

 

Director 4: Angus Ward

DOB: 06/06/1955

Nationality: British

Occupation: Engineers

 

Issued Share Capital:

Ordinary

- Number of shares issued: 50,000

- Aggregate nominal value of issued shares: 50,000GBP

- 8% Net Cumulative Reedeemable Preference: 70,0000GBP

TOTALS - Numbers Issued = 75,000; Aggregate Nominal Value = 75,000GBP

 

Full Details of Shareholders:

 

Shareholding 1:

70,000 8% Net cumulative Reedemable Preference Shares held as at 28/01/2007

Shetland Development Trust

Town Hall

Lerwick

Shetland ZE1 0TB

 

Shareholding 2:

12500 Ordinary Shares held as at 28/01/2007

G Dennis Thomson

 

Shareholding 3:

12500 Ordinary Shares held as at 28/01/2007

Michael Thomson

 

Shareholding 4:

12500 Ordinary Shares held as at 28/01/2007

Angus Ward

[Baxter]

Thw ind farm will greatly benefit shetlands economy, it can only be a positive step for the islands.

[trout]

^^ Excellent piece of rhetoric there. Would you care to elaborate on what and how it will "greatly benefit"? Facts and figures too please!

 

To our South is the neighbouring Isle of Orkney - upon such Isle is the below said company:

 

http://www.northstar-newmedia.co.uk/landscape_visualisation.asp

 

Who specialise in 3D Computer Aided Modelling with their "Virtual Terrain Project" - used in projects such as a "pre-visualisation and planning tool for wind farm design".

 

Have a look on their site and see the potential of the software to this argument.

 

I think the people of Shetand would potentially have a greater understanding of the scale of this project if such software was utilised, no? Real-time visual movement within the affected areas rather as photoshop'd photographs.

[Twerto]

 

I think the people of Shetand would potentially have a greater understanding of the scale of this project if such software was utilised, no? Real-time visual movement within the affected areas rather as photoshop'd photographs.

 

Photoshop'd photographs that look wrongly scaled to me too.

[trout]

 

I think the people of Shetand would potentially have a greater understanding of the scale of this project if such software was utilised, no? Real-time visual movement within the affected areas rather as photoshop'd photographs.

 

Photoshop'd photographs that look wrongly scaled to me too.

 

Exactly. Ensuring the depth of field in a photograph against your plotted co-ordinates is not an exact science and can only ever be from the exact angle it's taken!

 

At least with visualisation software you are able to plot exact metrics and be able to rotate and scale from any point of origin. Using OS map data will ensure exact metrics.

[islandhopper]

Photoshop'd photographs that look wrongly scaled to me too.

Right, Twerto. It's more or less amateur work, badly mounted pics so that in some cases the cables between two telegraph poles go up and meet in an angle of some 5° ... gravity on Shetland switched off ...

[Fjool]

It must be possible to use some software such as the kind Trout has found to produce a realistic vision of the visual impact.

 

To be honest though, I'm not convinced that the scenic argument is the strongest case against the wind-farm any more.

 

The whole thing is starting to sit very uncomfortably with me.

[islandhopper]

To be honest though, I'm not convinced that the scenic argument is the strongest case against the wind-farm any more.

That's for sure!

Nevertheless, such "mistakes" in the visual presentation of the project may be seen as some kind of indicator

- i) for the bad conditions of the preliminary work until today

or

- ii) for some kind of "intention".

 

Both would be desastrous.

[trout]

To be honest though, I'm not convinced that the scenic argument is the strongest case against the wind-farm any more.

 

No, not the strongest - ever really - but one that the masses understand and can associate with. Should the scale of this project be realised in virtual real-time - peoples attention span may then reach far enough to query other aspects too.

[Carlos]

 

I think the people of Shetand would potentially have a greater understanding of the scale of this project if such software was utilised, no? Real-time visual movement within the affected areas rather as photoshop'd photographs.

 

Photoshop'd photographs that look wrongly scaled to me too.

 

Exactly. Ensuring the depth of field in a photograph against your plotted co-ordinates is not an exact science and can only ever be from the exact angle it's taken!

 

At least with visualisation software you are able to plot exact metrics and be able to rotate and scale from any point of origin. Using OS map data will ensure exact metrics.

 

They are already using 3d software which should be able to acurately position the turbines realative to the landscape.

They should be able to set a virtual camera in the 3d sotware to match the known camera data and position of the photo.

That should then be a pretty accurate guide to photoshops from.

 

There are quite a few "shoulds" in their though and some of the images I have seen have mistakes in them for sure.

 

If you are looking at realtime 3d, especially based on a 50m OS grid landscape model, then there are losses as well as gains. There will be no visual representation of anything as small as roads, no houses, and to be realtime you will most likely be rendering from openGL on the graphics card, limiting things like textures quite a bit.

 

I'm not sure how much people would gain from the "live" moving view when there were so few familiar features to locate it, but it might be another source of information at least.

 

In general this kind of visualisation has to be trusted to be of much good. There are various ways of doing that, giving various accuracies and taking various amounts of cost and time.

[crofter]

Here's a thought... someone said windpower can only provide 20% of our electricity requirements, because there needs to be backup capacity for when the wind is not blowing. However, if the Shetland "wind resource" is twice as good as anywhere else, could we not supply 40% of the power needed in Shetland from wind?