Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Laidlaw Energy Group LLEG



GREY:LLEG - Post by User

Post by HHAPPYon Jul 03, 2011 11:49pm
275 Views
Post# 18791819

Because of recent news of a potential

Because of recent news of a potentialwalk out by funders from Berlin project have posted this comment
"

Well, some thoughts after the news re possible pull out of CateStreet

Capital from funding the Berlinproject.

Around last December or January I posted on  LLEG thread that I was  concerned that further delays of approvalsneeded to begin construction might cause the funder to pullout.

The substantial amount of monies needed meant that the funder had to keeptheir money dedicated to this project and perhaps turn down other profitableprojects.

The increased costs that were being realized from am initial estimate of95 million dollars had convinced LLEG management that they could not possiblyraise the sizable portion that would be required to participate in maintaining asignificant interest in the project. They wisely changed their participation toa payment from the funders for guiding the project through the acceptanceprocess. An initial payment PLUS a more significant payment once complianceallowed construction to begin.

  I amnot one who would criticize the PUC for their role in taking the time to givetheir approval. The proof of their proper role was the final deal that was madeto obtain compliance that would allow Public Service of New Hampshire to buyelectricity from the Berlin plant. The ratepayers of New Hampshire’s costswere significantly reduced by the PUC’s insistence. I am sure the funders stillfelt that the deal was a profitable one –even at an estimated cost of 235million dollars.

 However the deal breaker of a possible oneyear delay in fighting a law suit is too much of an impediment for the deal towork.

Even a possible expedited hearing of the NH Supreme Court might entail asignificant delay and possibly a further appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Enough already. The funders may have spent a hundred thousand dollars onpreliminary work on the property and legal and tax costs. But compared to theestimated 235 Million dollar cost of the completed project it would be anacceptable cost to bear and walk away.

Unless the NH government can find an expedited solution that results inan immediate solution to this problem than the Berlin project is dead.

LLEG will survive with the projects that they have initiated providingthey have access to the funding they contemplated and also the need to replacethe additional funds that they would have received for achieving the thresholdof a construction start of the Berlin project.

LLEG management has shown that they have the experience and skills tobring this project to be compliant with the governing bodies that must acceptthe projects. Legal impediments by companies who cannot stand free marketrealities should NOT be allowed to destroy the city of Berlin.""

<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>