Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[unlinkedstudent]

^^ Me thinks we should track down his e-mail address and let him know precisely how good people can make decisions!

[paulb]

duhh why do you think the power company would be willing to do it themselves, its very simples can you guess. i will give you a clue££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ more for them. and they really do know there job its what they do.

if we own a share in it we have a say. if we don't well we don't.

[paulb]

^^ Me thinks we should track down his e-mail address and let him know precisely how good people can make decisions!

how many on the anti front have run multi billion £ power companies. im sure that he would be really willing to read all the ill informed views. after all he could just read the same letters from every project that they do. do you know that the anti windfarm groups have been sharing how to info. thats why they will always go on over the same things. if they wanted to build one on a coal spoil heap they would campaign against the enviromental damage it would cause.

[Ghostrider]

....if we own a share in it we have a say. if we don't well we don't.

 

We do, and we will, unless the council is so incredibly stupid as sell the land VE is planned to go on.

 

The council, I am led to believe, is the single largest landowner upon which the VE site sits, which puts us in a similar position with it as we were and are for Sullom. We do not need to invest in anything, spend anything, or be involved in the hassle of running anything to be in a position to earn from VE, we're already there as majority site owner.

 

Yes, the annual cheque will be smaller that the VE "projected" £20 odd Million, but which do you prefer. No expense, no work, and a fixed price of clean money to do with as you like flowing in every year guaranteed, or risking capital, being involved in the work and hassle of running the operation, for maybe a bigger annual cheque, sometimes, but maybe beggar all as often.

 

We are sitting on an asset that SSE are making very enthusiastic noises about wanting, the site and the wind that passes over it, screw them for every penny we can wring out of them, and let them have it while we laugh all the way to the bank I say.

[JGHR]

duhh why do you think the power company would be willing to do it themselves, its very simples can you guess. i will give you a clue££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ more for them. and they really do know there job its what they do.

if we own a share in it we have a say. if we don't well we don't.

 

Why do you suppose they are not doing it themselves?

 

I have been wondering about this for a while, if it is such a sound investment why do SSE need to be in partnership with anyone? They have the expertise and financial muscle to go it alone so why don't they?

 

Perhaps it's because the SSE executives and board genuinely want to make a positive contribution to the Shetland economy at the expense of their shareholders.

 

Or, perhaps the SSE executives and board prefer to limit their exposure to commercial risk whenever their management strategies dictate that it would be prudent to do so, and, they have maybe even realised that it will be rather difficult to turn up in Shetland and construct an enormous windfarm against the will of the legal landowner.

[Ghostrider]

^^ SSE maybe also realised it was good for their PR. All the negativity and abuse is being heaped on the SIC/SCT, while SSE barely peep over the parapet and remain virtually unscathed.

 

SSE must have thought Santa had come early the day the the council came a knockin'. Bottom line, the SIC/SCT needs SSE far more than SSE needs the SIC/SCT for the VE venture. SSE are experienced successful corporate operators, which means if VE goes ahead on the partnership basis as is, SSE will be working for their own bottom line first and foremost, and VE's bottom line second. The two may be closely linked, but are very far from being one and the same. If it comes to a bigger picture decision for SSE as to whether they themselves take a hit over something, or then VE does, they will ensure it is VE that suffers, for no other reason than they are able to unload 50% of that hit on to their partner, us!

[JGHR]

Bottom line, the SIC/SCT needs SSE far more than SSE needs the SIC/SCT for the VE venture.

 

I think they both need each other. Remove any one of these two partners, and I can't see how the project can proceed. SIC/SCT have not got the technical know-how or cash to go it alone while SSE cannot get the acreage to build on without the council backing.

[paulb]

mm yes they can. if they can prove its of national importace they will get the land. come on think if trump could get the land through compulsary purchase with out the bad pr do you think that a national power scheme would not. even easier when its discovered that the council own the land.

 

i imagine that they thought that a community trusts involvement would mean it had the support of the community. the pr and opertunity to convice other communities to do the same would be worth a lot to them. but to be honest i don't think they are bothered either way.

[Voice of the Mysterons]

I have still not made my mind up if I am totally for or against the VE project but if the wind farm is going to go ahead regardless of community involvement, then we are better to be a part of it so at least Shetland is getting something back.

 

Found an interesting article yesterday though about the viability of such projects....

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/special-reports/article.html?in_article_id=523986&in_page_id=108

 

Particularly interesting are the final six paragraphs which I have attached below for those who are fed up reading large reports!

 

<"All over the EU, other politicians are waking up to the dead-end to which this madness has been leading us.

 

The Danes, who have built more wind turbines per head than anyone, have realised the idiocy of a policy that has given them the highest electricity prices in Europe, while they have to import much of their power from abroad.

 

In Spain, their rush for wind and solar power has proved a national disaster.

 

In Germany, having built more turbines than any other country in the world, they are now building new coal-fired stations like crazy.

 

In Holland, meanwhile, they have now given two fingers to the EU by slashing all their renewables subsidies.

 

Only in Britain is our political class still so imprisoned in its infatuation with wind that it is prepared to court this dangerously misguided pipedream. ">

[Ghostrider]

I have still not made my mind up if I am totally for or against the VE project but if the wind farm is going to go ahead regardless of community involvement, then we are better to be a part of it so at least Shetland is getting something back.

 

It can't go ahead without community involvement, to say so is simply SSE spin. What they're carefully omitting to mention is that "it is going to go ahead if a/the site is available.

 

As I said earlier, I am led to believe the SIC (which, theoretically at least, are the represenatatives of the community) are the largest single owner of the site currently planned for VE. If they will not permit the development on that property (as other landowners did in the earlier stages of the VE proposal, whom were given the opportunity to have a portion of VE on their property, but didn't want it), VE as it stands is dead in the water.

 

Majority site ownership by the SIC was the community's ticket in to VE, and its also the community's ticket to pull the plug on it and get out.

[ArabiaTerra]

I have still not made my mind up if I am totally for or against the VE project but if the wind farm is going to go ahead regardless of community involvement, then we are better to be a part of it so at least Shetland is getting something back.

 

Found an interesting article yesterday though about the viability of such projects....

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/special-reports/article.html?in_article_id=523986&in_page_id=108

 

Hmmm, another propaganda piece by the anti-windfarm lobby.

 

Just a couple of lies in it this time, the rest of it is just mostly extreme spin.

 

The lies are: "...those gas-fired power stations wastefully running 24 hours a day just to provide back-up for the intermittency of the wind,"

 

Err, wrong. Gas fired power stations will not need to run 24 hrs a day as back-up.

 

and: "In Germany, having built more turbines than any other country in the world, they are now building new coal-fired stations like crazy."

 

No they aren't. When Merkel came to power, She had a manifesto commitment to close down Germany's Nuclear Stations. This meant building Coal stations to replace them. This policy is now under review due to the impact on the climate of new coal stations.

 

I was going to comment further on this article, then I noticed it was written by Torygraph columnist, Christopher Booker. This man has no credibility on this, or any other subject related to the climate change debate. He is a known, repeated and unrepentant liar. Nothing he writes should have any attention paid to it except to point and laugh.

[Kevin]

I have still not made my mind up if I am totally for or against the VE project but if the wind farm is going to go ahead regardless of community involvement, then we are better to be a part of it so at least Shetland is getting something back.

 

It can't go ahead without community involvement, to say so is simply SSE spin. What they're carefully omitting to mention is that "it is going to go ahead if a/the site is available.

 

As I said earlier, I am led to believe the SIC (which, theoretically at least, are the represenatatives of the community) are the largest single owner of the site currently planned for VE. If they will not permit the development on that property (as other landowners did in the earlier stages of the VE proposal, whom were given the opportunity to have a portion of VE on their property, but didn't want it), VE as it stands is dead in the water.

 

Majority site ownership by the SIC was the community's ticket in to VE, and its also the community's ticket to pull the plug on it and get out.

 

A very valid point, and one that I made somewhar earlier in the depths o this thread.

[enkelt skapninger]

It can't go ahead without community involvement, to say so is simply SSE spin. What they're carefully omitting to mention is that "it is going to go ahead if a/the site is available.

 

If it is deemed in the national interest, the government can allow compulsory purchase of the land, and SSE will build it whether we want it or not. There'd be a one-off payment to land-owners (and possibly some payment of land rental) but that would be it. SSE would coin it in with no ongoing recompense to Shetland.

 

 

Whether we like it or not, it will happen, because poweful people down South have deemed it so. We have to decide whether we want to be inside the tent p***ing out, or outside the tent p***ing in.

 

Don't think for one moment that any amount of bluster or dissent from the local populace will make any difference.

 

We're at the stage where we can either have windmills and a clear conscience OR windmills and a load of money (admittedly for a large initial outlay). A conscience doesn't tar the roads or keep the schools open.

[Ghostrider]

^^ Talking about compulsory purchase at this stage of the game is borderline scaremongering, there's a very long way from here to there, not least the sheer time taken to go through the legal necessities. That is of course, if the project were to be deemed "in the national interest". We're due a Scottish election soon, what is, or isn't in Scotland's national interest could change radically as a result.

 

I'm not necessarily opposing VE, period, although all things considered I'd rather it didn't happen. I am opposing very strongly OUR money going anywhere near it. If the Mickey Mouse business partnership that VE are proposing is the best those behind it could think up, it doesn't exactly inpsire confidence in letting them run it as a business, and if it was the best they could get SSE to agree to, we're better off out and just taking SSE's rent money.

 

Those who dreamed up and put the current business partnership to SSE burned our potentially most profitable bridges in the process, what's on the table now is an attempt to squeeze out of the deal some of what they waved goodbye to by not going with a more secure and profitable alternative business plan in the first place. As such it is higher risk, and to my mind too high risk to take a chance on. SSE almost certainly would not make a renegotiation of the of the business partnership to be more in our favour possible, so the "safest" option left to make money out of this, "if" it goes ahead is to negotiate a favourable lease of the site to the highest bidder and let the cheques roll in.

 

We have an asset for which there is interest, and hence a value. Lease it to SSE or whoever by all means if we must, its money for spending nothing and doing nothing, more importantly it comes at no risk to our existing capital, and is guaranteed as long as the lesee occupies the site. It is money for old rope, every business minded person's dream.

[enkelt skapninger]

I'd disagree that talk of compulsory purchase is borderline scaremongering - SSE will have discussed it internally from day one, and as a business they'd have been incompetent not to look at all options, including those that drive a steamroller over local wishes.

 

If there is any money to be made in leasing the land, it'll be peanuts compared to owning a stake in the venture.

 

I'll wildly speculate now (as everyone else seems to!). It'll be in 7 figures, but probably not by much, and won't maintain standards of life as they are at the moment, let alone improve things.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that maybe the deal on the table isn't the best that could have been negotiated, but like you say, SSE aren't going to renegotiate, and my opinion is that the lease-only alternative won't give benefits that'll outweigh the disadvantages.