Jump to content

Windfarm could cost up to £40 million


Major Rushen

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Cambon said:

I think you are the one who needs a reality check. I bet you didn’t even know that MU have changed their minds and are going for the 5MW turbines rather than the 4MW. 

The news keeps getting better. 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Idleweiss said:

Because I bought the full IOM corporate pack and the last 10 years or so annual returns off IOM Registry yesterday as well. And for the above stated reasons. 

Yet the UK company isn't showing the IOM co as a subsidiary on its B/S. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Idleweiss said:

I have the full IOM pack which I have little doubt that I will be posting up online at some stage. Maybe you could pay your £15 to IOM Registry before making speculative comments? 

It is not speculation that the IOM Co is not shown on the B/S which is odd if the UK co is the parent, unless it was acquired after the year end. 

  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have paid £2 for the last annual return.  The shareholders are three individuals  one of whom, the majority shareholder,  is also the sole shareholder of the UK company.  That does not make the UK Co a parent of the IOM Co, they just have common ownership.  There may have been a subsequent share transfer as share transfers are only recorded in the annual return. 

It may be that the UK Co was formed solely to keep the name in the UK pending actually commencing revenue generating activities.  There may be many reasons for forming it and it not commencing activities. 

But from what I can see on the public record, there is nothing to indicate that the IOM Co is held by an insubstantial UK Co.  They just have the same name and common ownership. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mercenary said:

Makes complete sense based on the Vestas technical documents you linked to & the wind speeds from previous survey, and again completely undermines your 'estimates'

Kind of, but a more narrow working window, so potentially even less efficient. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Idleweiss said:

And for the above stated reasons. 

Which is  to try and discredit a guy who posts factual information about green energy by stating he does not run a very successful business, as if that means anything and all because failed businessman Stu Peters chickened out of a bet he was going to lose.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2024 at 8:57 PM, FatRoundMiddle said:

Which is  to try and discredit a guy who posts factual information about green energy by stating he does not run a very successful

 

Edited by Idleweiss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Idleweiss said:

Annual returns and registry information are factual information. It’s filed as official record either here or in the UK. How could showing factual information possibly discredit anyone? Publishing false information could, of course, discredit someone. Like whether your good for a £2K bet. 

Yeah yeah, whatever Stu still  chickened out.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Idleweiss said:

Annual returns and registry information are factual information. It’s filed as official record either here or in the UK. How could showing factual information possibly discredit anyone? Publishing false information could, of course, discredit someone. Like whether your good for a £2K bet. 

But what do you think that public information tells you? IOM companies don't file accounts so you cannot make any assessment on its financial situation, nor can you imply anything about the financial position of the IOM Co by looking at the UK Co.  Just not sure where you are going here. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Idleweiss said:

In renegotiating a bet with someone who would have to lease a pot to piss in? 

Really, I don't know the guy but he seems to do alright and could certainly stand £2K its hardly that much money. Only you are trying to say otherwise, Stu chickened out, though you only have to read his manifesto to know he is not a man of his word so he would have never kept up his end.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who was the old windbag on the Moanin line today talking about the NSC and the flooding of the pool and then turned it round to the bases of the wind turbines causing flooding. He said he lived 500m from the windfarm. At first I thought it might be @Cambon but surely not

Anyway he was waffling on about his son in law had told him that when the NSc pool flooded the tank (pool) would have lifted and that why all the tiles cracked. Its called floatation he said, and concrete structures like sewerage(sic) works are well known for this and can be damaged doe to the uoyancy . He said he had showed his son in law a picture of the pool full to overflowing. This he then managed to link to the thousands of tonnes on concrete that will be poured on Eary Stane and how the same could happen causing flooding

Well forgive me if I am not right, but if the pool was full of water how could it be lifted by the weight of water from below and WTF did that have to do with wind turbines

He then said he wasn't worried anyway because he was sure the wind farm would never get built

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...