21 days & 1 hours
1.8% - 5.5%
min - max equity offered
A$480,000.00 - A$1,500,000.00
min - max investment sought
min investment parcel
I really like what you guys are doing and hope you are successful!
My question is about how long your company can sustain itself over the next few years through the grants you already have, the raising of funds (the $9 odd mil) and revenue from the King Island implementation. i.e. do you have a forecast of income vs expenditure over the next 3-4 years showing how your company can stay viable?
It appears you need ~$1.5mil pa just in suppliers and employees - I'm assuming this figure is outside of what you require for the King Island project? where are you funding your operational costs?
Firstly congrats on the tech, I think wave energy is the only renewable energy capable of providing base load power at this stage.
Moving forward do you have any other trials, interested partners or potential customers?
My other question is relating to finance and dilution. You admit there will need to be future funding and even with a successful trial the profits from this wouldn't be sufficient to fund your next project so I am curious as to how you plan on expanding the company and revenues without making the equity any participants hold from this offer worthless considering the entire raise will only equate to a maximum of 5.5%?
Not trying to be negative I like what your doing but want to know if it's worth investing at this stage.
Thanks for the positive comments.
To answer your questions, we haven't progressed any follow on projects in detail just yet - we're focusing on ensuring a successful outcome at King Island - but we do have some strong possibilities for profitable projects post King Island. However, I'd rather get a little further down the track with these before revealing specifics.
As for future funding after the King island project, we don't expect this to be large. We are intrinsically a technology developer, not a project developer, so our capital requirements will be minimal going forward. And a successful King Island project will likely result in a higher valuation for any subsequent round of funding, thereby minimising the dilution to existing shareholders from this round. Better to be in early than late, although, by its very nature, an earlier investment at a lower valuation logically comes with more risk.
I hope this helps.
Replied to Shane Watson
Exciting idea! I was wondering how you are planning on integrating it on the grid? Do you have on-board transformers and inverters, or is this being done on-shore?
If offshore, what voltage would you be able to export?
The energy will generally be transmitted from each device to shore at a voltage of 11 kV. If the local grid requires 33 kV or higher, it will be stepped up by an onshore transformer.
Replied to Matthijs Koreman
Does this investment qualify as an ESIC?
We did receive a positive ESIC ruling from the tax office for the 2016/17 financial year and, subsequently, all our shareholders at that time benefited from this ruling. However, our annual spend has been greater than $1 million since then, which, unfortunately, precludes us from qualifying for the ESIC.
Replied to Ian Haverly
Do you plan to engage a share registrar & issue share certificates?
Indeed we are planning on engaging a share registry post capital raise and they will manage the issuance of shares.
Replied to Ian Haverly
1.How does this company differ from Oceanlinx? and what lessons have been learnt there?
2.How is the technology differ from that of Oceanlinx? it appear the technology and IP was sold to Hong Kong in 2014. How will this impact protection of the IP ?
3. What is the exit strategy for the business? and what are some examples of successful exits?
Hi Josh, there is a fundamental difference from the Oceanlinx technology. Our technology utilises a unidirectional oscillating water column, while Oceanlinx used the more traditional bidirectional technique. Extensive testing has shown that the unidirectional method, with energy capture on the downstroke, results in 15% more energy extracted than the sum of the up and down strokes of a bidirectional system. A unidirectional system also allows for a simpler, more robust, and more efficient turbine.
This fundamental difference completely differentiates the IP from that of Oceanlinx and other bidirectional WOC technologies. It's actually more robust than the IP of a bidirectional system, as ours is the first case of a unidirectional OWC. BTW, you're correct that the Oceanlinx IP was sold to HK in 2014.
We expect an exit in as few as two to three years, either by way of a 'trade sale' to a large global energy or construction company, or via an IPO. Our business model entails partnering with a large global company to ensure the rapid uptake of the technology around the world. This partner would be a logical candidate for acquiring the company, should that be what shareholders want.
I hope this helps.
Replied to Joshua Lau
Hi, is this a donation or does my investment end up being shares
Great concept and have been interested for many years in this type of generation
Hi Jody, it's not a donation. You will receive shares in the company in return for any investment.
Replied to Jody Fraser
Wave Swell Energy Offer Document
This is the Wave Swell Energy Limited CSF Offer Document as at 25 October 2018.Download
The investors below have committed capital to the business in this funding round.