@elleburra
I believe the government wants a long term solution, and they see a desalination plant as the preferred solution. Nirobox's probably have a shorter deploy time, but they wouldn't last as long as a desal plant. So maintenance or replacement of Nirobox's may outweigh the cost of a desal plant in the long term.
I don't think it would be wise for Fluence to disclose all the details of the contract... don't think any ASX listed company would for that matter.
Don't forget the end user of the water are the 80,000+ rate payers/government... so they will essentially be paying for the water and desal plant. Their water rates will pay off the debt and interest over time, as well as the costs associated with operating the plant (including the US$11m paid to Fluence as a service provider).
As such, the SPV would be set up to earn a profit after 30 years. So no interest per say on the equity investment, but a ROI would be earned by Fluence assuming all goes to plan.
One thing we haven't been told (or I haven't found) is the margin on the US$11m paid annually to Fluence.. I have assumed 30%, but it could well be higher or lower. Don't think they will give an exact amount, as that wouldn't be very smart from a business point of view.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
