We always welcome a Letter to the Editor to share with our readers – unsurprisingly they don’t always reflect the views of this publication. If you have something you’d like to share, get in touch and of course, your considered comments are welcome below.
This from Christopher Innis. Ed
There has been a lot of press recently about poorly negotiated deals by Council with the private sector. The Island Roads initiative is on everyone’s lips.
Another is about to happen, and there is still time to stop it. It is the PTEC tidal energy project off St Catherine’s Point.
Why?
Return on investment
Council as the venture capitalist/ seed investor in this project is seeking a 9% return on investment. City financiers would be looking for nearer 900%. Why give the upside away?
Making the marine site good
In the absence of being provided detailed information which has been withheld, it seems the project is being effectively guaranteed by Council if it remains as head lessee. This is because, it, not PTEC the operator and main beneficiary of the project, may have final responsibility for making the marine site good.
That means when the site is restituted at the end of the lease it could cost tens of millions of pounds. If PTEC goes bust or one of the sub lessens goes bust, Council may have to pick up the clean up bill, and that, given the project isn’t financed, could be at any time.
Councillors please tell us this is not the case.
Experience?
The deal under PFI is with a local business, Perpetuus Energy that has no published experience in tidal energy, the operation of energy facilities or their construction and maintenance. Shouldn’t Council only go with a big well funded operator and particularly if it is the promoter and has put up the initial funds.
Why compromise if it is such a good idea?
Lack of knowledge by councillors
Applications have gone into the Marine Management Organisation that propose as a possibility, and it is that at this stage, 30 five storey structures, yet some councillors don’t know that.
Shouldn’t they, the public, including local Parish Councils and fishing clubs and our local MP be properly appraised of the visual damage to the South Coast and construction at Castle Cove? Shouldn’t they be properly consulted?
£1m investment
The project also involves Council putting in £1 million, in addition to its own costs to secure the marine license (now at least lent in to the venture} that carries for the Council the residual liabilities for restitution.
It is not clear if it will be called on to provide more funds. PTEC has failed to answer questions on this to date. Last accounts suggest in the absence of new funds, money is running out. The Council to date has not released the commercial arrangements. It should.
Questionable suitability of site
If that isn’t enough, three calls to clean energy experts will tell you: the site is not suitable because of munitions and tide/ wave/ storm surge; there is no need for another experimental tidal technology site, the one in Scotland works perfectly well and others are underway; and, some of the proposed technologies in the marine application have already gone bust!
Perhaps Council should have realised that the site’s location is one reason why no energy company with relevant experience would back the project; that the reason it took Council years to find the current partner, a recently formed local business, was because others wouldn’t touch it.
Dump the project
Come on Council, kill this project, you and we, don’t need more headaches and, potentially grounds for a judicial review of administrative action.
Time to call time on an ill conceived project.
Image: oceanflowenergy under CC BY 2.0
