Gold or Silver
15 Apr 2017
Re: Peter Earl Just in case the link doesn`t work ................................11 April 2017 – Independent Power Corporation PLC (IPC) is proud to announce the establishment of a new power development company, QG Power Africa (QGPA). This joint venture, with engineering consultancy Tomé International and the US$250 million Quantum Global Mezzanine Fund, has been set up to develop power plants across countries in the sub-Saharan Africa region. It will focus, during its initial phase, on Angola, Botswana, Mozambique, Uganda, Nigeria, Kenya and Ghana. QGPA will expand its development capabilities to meet Africa’s fast growing demand for power.IPC is looking forward to develop power assets with the support of Tomé as project managers and Quantum Global as strategic investors.Milko Skoro, Managing Director, Head of Structuring at Quantum Global commented, “The joint venture arrangement of QGPA is based on an exceptional match of capabilities and expertise of the involved parties to conceive and develop power projects across the sub-Saharan region. Tomé and IPC’s track record and the newly created platform for further growth were highly attractive to QG Africa Mezzanine LP.”The rationale behind this investment, beyond generation of solid returns, is the infrastructure sector’s substantial potential for job and wealth creation and local supply chains that positively impacts upon national economies in Africa. Commercial infrastructure projects in sub-Saharan Africa currently show unparalleled potential and resilience against the perceived risks associated with the African continent.Speaking today, Peter Earl, CEO of IPC, said, “We are delighted to be working with such strong partners who are committed to rolling out a programme of new, low emissions, high efficiency power plants across Africa. The combination of our expertise with that of Tomé and the financial muscle of Quantum Global positions us well to meet our ambitious plans in the coming years.”
Gold or Silver
15 Apr 2017
Peter Earl [link] of Independent Power Corporation from Rurelec PLCThe Directors of Rurelec PLC (AIM: RUR), the owner, operator and developer of power generation capacity internationally, announce the spin-out of Independent Power Corporation PLC ("IPC"
from the Company. The separation of power plant development from the core Rurelec business of owning and operating of power plants in Latin America is being effected through the sale to Peter Earl, Rurelec's former CEO, of all of the issued share capital in IPC for a nominal sum once all the principal assets of IPC have been transferred to Rurelec. The net effect of the spin-out is to reduce overhead at Rurelec by more than £500,000 per annum. This has the additional benefit of allowing Rurelec to work with other developers and operators of power plants whilst also reducing fixed costs.Therefore we spun out $250 million for half a million pounds .Didn`t Peter do well .Not so Impressive by Mr Morris.And May
Gold or Silver
12 Mar 2017
Re: Full Year Results One hopes for a bit more clarity on the ongoing situation from the next RNS .Although this is Rurelec and anything could happen. Good luck Brooms et Al And May
broomfielder
18 Feb 2017
Full Year Results In recent years we have witnessed the reporting of the Full Year results (to end December) deteriorating to around July annually.Given the H1 results (to end June) can report by end September each year, then there is no real reason why the Full Year's figures cannot be released in a similar timeframe. After all its not as if Rurelec are a hive of activity these days so even the Auditors of this world will be hard pushed to explain why these figures should be delayed beyond 3 months after the financial year end.So we should be expecting a financial update by no later than end March which is only c6 weeks away, unless of course someone has broken their pencil etc. or whatever pathetic reason is given for taking 6 months to produce the Accounts of a largely dormant Company.So if its still Grant Thornton who act as Auditors, I suggest that get on with it and (attempt at least) to justify their fee here.B
broomfielder
12 Feb 2017
Re:RNS Whilst the broad message contained within Friday's RNS was very positive for RUR, given its brevity, its no great surprise that PI's are scratching their heads a bit and then having little option but to speculate on some of the 'unsaid' information in RUR's communication to the Market.As I mentioned in an earlier post, we really need much more detail of the Agreement reached with Ethosenergy Italia ('Ethos') to fully understand more precisely the financial transactions behind this document and the revised nature of RUR's obligations.Now while others have suggested elsewhere that Friday's RNS indicated RUR had become liable for the debts of IPSA (to Ethos) to prevent Ethos taking action which would encumber the 2 Turbines in question and thereby thwart RUR's attempt to sell these assets (with a clear title), I am not so sure.I accept its speculation on my part, but as IPSA are insolvent (to the best of my knowledge) and unable to make any further payments toward the sums they owe Ethos, then the debt will be impaired. Its therefore reasonable to suggest that if RUR has taken on any element of IPSA's debt, they will have done so for a discount i.e. not £ for £. The term 'assign' also has a security implication and therefore IPSA now owe RUR the gross debt they previously owed Ethos, and we (i.e. RUR) should have an amended obligation to Ethos which will satisify them provided we keep up the repayments. Thus by taking IPSA's default out of the equation, they have transferred or assigned their 'interest' in the title to the 2 turbines AS FAR AS IPSA is concerned. If RUR ultimately default, they remain in a position to encumber the assets AND the salient issue here is the fact that Ethos still appear to be in possession of the 2 Turbines which is as good as it gets for a (legally) unsecured Creditor.So what I'm saying is that RUR could actually be in a better position as far as this transaction is concerned than we think (based as it has to be on the information/figures derived from past Interim and Final Accounts).Now if the BoD would only treat its shareholders like 'grown-ups' and start communicating the full facts etc., then we wouldn't have to speculate. It might just help everyone.And thats before we go anywhere near the Peruvian and Chilean 'assets'.B
Gold or Silver
10 Feb 2017
Re: RNS Good post Brooms, Yes today is clarification that the debts we have . We are now able to maintain and eventually clear and become a debt free ,valuable company again.It`s been a long road ,close to administration and back again . Thanks to P.EFeel sorry for the IPSA shareholders ,although even they may now have some hope of a return of sorts. The only way is up . Good luck And May
broomfielder
10 Feb 2017
RNS Talk about drip feeding Shareholders with the absolute minimum of information!!The outline provided by the Company however is excellent news by any measure - what we need of course is much more flesh on the bones of both the current trading position and the Agreement reached with Ethosenergy (only part of which dealt with the assignation of sums due to Ethosenergy by IPSA).Now having defended RUR's position against the possibility of Ethosenergy encumbering the 2 Seimens-Westinghouse gas turbines, RUR are in an infinitely better position to dispose of these assets than they previously were.I have absolutely no doubt RUR have been discussing settlement with Ethosenergy for some time and this could well explain the apparent lack of progress of the asset disposals..Looks from what we are told to be another minor triumph from this BoD who certainly dont shout their achievements from the rooftops.If they keep going at this steady pace, we could all begin to believe that we might realise Net Asset value or more for our shares.However, meantime one step at a time, but things are beginning to look very encouraging. Cash flows up on last year and now in line with budget!The foregoing also explains PE's increasingly desperate attempt to stop RUR by raising the recent Statutory Notice etc (now withdrawn).B
broomfielder
31 Jan 2017
SP Whilst today's RNS is undoubtedly very good news, the recent consistent buying (of shares) has been carried out in the midst of an effective news blackout from RUR. Now I never thought I would write this but, were positive news on the possible asset sales etc to be announced, then the SP would re-rate even from todays levels.Trading volumes witnessed today were huge (for RUR) and whilst given the history, some selling into the rising price was both understandable as it was inevitable. Now there appears to be a number of factors all moving (finally) in the Company's favour having been wronged so many times in the past both by external parties and those within the Co.Is it finally time for the considerable value in these shares to be unlocked?B
broomfielder
31 Jan 2017
RNS Excellent that the SN's have been withdrawn.Now given the previous RNS indicated that talks with PE had commenced regarding these Notices I trust that no monetary settlement has been reached with that party to allow the SN's to be withdrawn.As usual brevity is the watchword with RUR communications but c'mon have a bit of consideration for the many long suffering shareholders and give us some 'across-the-board' update on all aspects. You are a PUBLIC Company after all.B
Gold or Silver
31 Jan 2017
Great News Free of PE . And May
broomfielder
24 Jan 2017
Re: Open Offer Yes, that was one of the absurdities of the Open Offer and despite wholesale condemnation by PI's, it was only the clout of ST that ensured the proposal was roundly defeated.Speaks volumes not only of the previous BoD's motives but also their competence.....or rather, the lack of it.B
NicholasNameless
24 Jan 2017
Re: Open Offer An open offer undertaking lauched without major shareholders consent?
broomfielder
23 Jan 2017
Open Offer NN - Apologies, now that I have engaged my brain, I realise you are referring to last year's share offer which, lets say, was not perceived to be in the wider shareholders interests.The promoters of that 'scheme' have of course now gone and we have a new BoD who are perhaps lacking expertise in RUR's technical operations but appear at least to be looking after ALL shareholders interests.Perhaps it should be no great surprise that some of the previous regime are again circling to see what they can scavenge. Certainly PI's should not be complacent in this regard.B
broomfielder
23 Jan 2017
Re: RNS As far as the SN's are concerned we should hear some sort of update soon given the short timescale usually stipulated within the Notice.Although suspicious of PE's motives, I have no idea what can be due to him given the sweet deal he appeared to secure when IPC was offloaded to him.NN - I not meaning to be obtuse, but do you mean that if no competing offer for ST's shares is received, the Administrators will be unable to decline it (in the absence of any higher competing offer etc) and the open offer is essentially a repeating offer until such time as it is either accepted or declined? In the event of a very low offer, declining may be the correct moral decision but may not be a legal one open to the Administrators.B
NicholasNameless
22 Jan 2017
Re: RNS I am reminded of the peculiar affair of the open offer.
