Nice — I gathered public company documents and market reporting on Ampeak Energy (the AIM-listed company that recently changed its name from SIMEC Atlantis / SAE) and built a transparent, assumption-driven discounted cash-flow (DCF) valuation focused on the group’s material project cashflows (AW1 battery project + MeyGen tidal operations). Below you’ll find:

• a short fact summary with primary sources,
• the DCF model (assumptions shown explicitly),
• a sensitivity table, and
• key risks & caveats and suggested next steps.

1) Quick company facts (most relevant items & sources)

• Who / what — Ampeak Energy Ltd (formerly SIMEC Atlantis / SAE) is a UK-focused developer, owner & operator of sustainable energy projects (battery storage, tidal stream etc.). The company is incorporated in Singapore and listed on AIM (ticker AMP). ampeak.energy
• AW1 (Afon Wysg 1) battery project — AW1 is a 240 MWh battery energy storage project at Uskmouth (USEP). Total project cost: £67.4m, of which £45.3m is provided by a Nord/LB project financing facility. The company retains ~75.3% equity in the AW1 project. AW1 reached financial close (post-period) and is forecast to commence operations Q4 2026, with the Group forecast to receive average revenues ≈ £13m p.a. and average EBITDA ≈ £9m p.a. in its first five full years. ampeak.energy
• AW2 / pipeline — AW2 (planned 500 MWh) has planning permission (RNS / Investegate announcement) and targets a connection date in 2029; AW3 and a larger “Mey BESS” (1.2 GWh) are in development/planning. www.investegate.co.uk
• MeyGen tidal operations — The operational MeyGen Phase 1 tidal array produced improved generation in H1 2025 (7.9 GWh in H1 2025 vs 5.1 GWh prior year) and generated £3.2m revenue in H1 2025 (annualises to ~£6.4m). Tidal segment EBITDA improved (H1 tidal EBITDA £2.3m). ampeak.energy
• H1 2025 financial snapshot (from the company’s Interim Report – 6 months to 30 June 2025) — Revenue £3.47m (H1-24 included a one-off land sale of £9.9m), loss before tax £4.65m, cash (reported) £5.34m, total loans & borrowings £65.99m (so net debt ≈ £60.65m at 30 June 2025). The AW1 financial close happened after period end (5 Aug 2025). ampeak.energy

2) DCF approach & explicit assumptions

Valuation focus — Because AW1 is the company’s near-term, cash-transformative asset and MeyGen is the existing operating business, I modelled the DCF as the value of the AW1 project (to Ampeak) + value of the MeyGen operations, then subtract net debt to get implied equity value and per-share estimate. I kept other development projects off the base valuation (they are optional upside and highly timing-dependent).Key modelling choices & why (I’ve included conservative choices where possible):

• Forecast period for stand-alone project cashflows: years 1–5 explicit, terminal value in year 5. (AW1 EBITDA guidance is given for the first five full years.) ampeak.energy
• AW1 guidance used: EBITDA = £9.0m p.a. (company guidance for first five full years), revenue guidance £13m p.a. used only as context. ampeak.energy
• MeyGen: I annualised H1 2025 tidal revenue to £6.4m and assumed an EBITDA margin 60% (MeyGen is an operating renewable plant with lower opex once deployed; the interim report showed tidal EBITDA of £2.3m for H1 which supports a materially positive margin). This implies EBITDA ≈ £3.84m p.a. for MeyGen. ampeak.energy
• Taxes — UK corporation tax assumption 25% (current UK headline rate for large companies). (This is a standard assumption for taxable operating entities in the UK.)
• Maintenance capex (annual) — AW1: £1.0m p.a. (battery asset lifecycle maintenance/capex). MeyGen: £0.5m p.a. (tidal turbine maintenance). These are conservative approximate maintenance caps — I treated them as recurring cash outflows to arrive at Free Cash Flow (FCF = EBITDA×(1−tax) − maintenance capex).
• Terminal growth — AW1: 2.0% long-term growth for FCF after year 5 (conservative for energy storage contracted-like cashflows). MeyGen long-term growth 1.0%.
• Discount rate (WACC) — base case 8.0% (project-level discount for renewables/BESS is often lower for contracted cashflows but the company has project finance and corporate risk; 8% is a reasonable mid-point for an IPP/project combination). I show sensitivity at 6% and 10%.
• Time of valuation — all PVs calculated as of today / start of operations (discounting FCFs from first year of operation) and net debt taken from the company interim balance sheet at 30 June 2025 (loans £65.991m, cash £5.340m → net debt £60.651m). ampeak.energy
• Issued shares — weighted average number from the interim financials: 722,812,335 shares (used to compute implied pence per share). ampeak.energy

3) The numbers — base case DCF (8% discount) and sensitivity

Base case (r = 8%, gAW1=2%, gMey=1%)

• AW1 valuation (PV of FCFs + terminal): £95.83m.
  Calculation inputs: EBITDA £9.0m, tax 25%, maintenance capex £1.0m, growth 2%, discount 8%.
  (FCF each year ≈ 9*(1−0.25) − 1 = £5.75m; valued as 5-year explicit + terminal.) ampeak.energy
• MeyGen valuation (perpetuity with 1% growth; conservative): £31.80m.
  (Based on EBITDA ≈ £3.84m, tax 25%, maintenance £0.5m; then perpetuity discounted.) ampeak.energy
• Enterprise value (sum of project values) ≈ £127.63m.
• Net debt (from the interim report at 30 Jun 2025) ≈ £60.65m. ampeak.energy
• Implied equity value ≈ £66.98m (Enterprise − Net debt).
• Per share (implied) ≈ £0.0927 / share = 9.27 pence per share (on 722,812,335 shares).

Sensitivity (discount rate 6% / 8% / 10%)

(Notes: table numbers are rounded; per-share pence shown for convenience.)Interpretation — the valuation is sensitive to the discount rate (project economics / risk premium). Under the base 8% assumption the model implies ~9–9.6 pence per share; at a lower 6% discount (less risk / more contracted cashflow) the value rises to ~18p; at a higher 10% discount it falls to ~5p. The current market price (recent mid-market trading shown in market pages is in the ~2–3 pence range depending on the date), so the model shows potential upside versus the market price, but the gap shrinks materially if you apply higher discount rates or include development risk / dilution. www.londonstockexchange.com

4) Important caveats, key risks & items omitted

• Model focus & conservatism — I intentionally valued only the AW1 cashflows (as Ampeak’s near-term, de-risked project with guidance) and the current MeyGen operations. I excluded AW2 / AW3 / Mey BESS and other pipeline projects as they are earlier stage or subject to grid connection timing — they represent meaningful upside but are uncertain in timing and funding. ampeak.energy
• Assumptions drive results — EBITDA guidance from the company for AW1 (£9m) is a load-bearing input. If achieved, AW1 materially increases the group’s cashflows — but delays in commissioning, changes to merchant revenues, or lower utilisation would reduce value materially. ampeak.energy
• Net debt & consolidation — the company’s net debt position will change because AW1 was financed via project debt and equity (the Group retains ~75% equity). The interim balance sheet shows group debt ~£66m and cash ~£5.34m at 30 Jun 2025; Zeus Capital and analyst commentary expect net debt to change materially in 2025/26 as AW1 consolidates and capex phasing occurs — my base model uses the 30 Jun 2025 net debt number (a snapshot). If management draws further corporate debt, equity injections or if project financing is non-recourse (which it partly is), the consolidated group net debt picture could differ; analyst published forecasts (Zeus Capital, etc.) expect higher net debt during construction. ampeak.energy
• Taxes, capex & working capital — I applied simple tax and maintenance capex assumptions (25% tax, maintenance caps). Real project tax profiles, depreciation schedules, and financing structure (interest tax shields, minority interest given 75.3% stake, non-recourse project debt) complicate a more granular consolidated valuation. For example, a materially non-recourse project debt would mean that project debt is largely ring-fenced and not fully attributable to corporate; this could increase equity value if net debt is less consolidated. The interim report and project documentation should be used to break down consolidated vs ring-fenced debt if you need a bespoke consolidated DCF. ampeak.energy
• Market & merchant risk for BESS — battery revenues depend on market dynamics (ancillary services, price arbitrage, capacity/availability payments). The company’s guidance likely reflects contracted / hedged revenue mixes; if revenues turn out more merchant and spot-exposed than expected, volatility will be higher and a higher discount rate would be appropriate. ampeak.energy

5) Sources (primary documents used)

• Ampeak Energy – Interim Report (Consolidated Interim Financial Statements for six months ended 30 June 2025) — official PDF (company). — core balance sheet, AW1 cost & financing, guidance on AW1 revenue/EBITDA, H1 results. ampeak.energy
• Investegate / RNS — AW2 planning permission announcement (1 Oct 2025). www.investegate.co.uk
• Investing.com / news coverage (Sep 2025) — reporting on AW1 guidance and H1 results. www.investing.com
• Zeus Capital / broker commentary — published analysis / forecasts and net debt expectations for 2025/26 (useful for cross-checking management vs market forecasts). www.directorstalkinterviews.com
• London Stock Exchange / market pages — ticker/market price context and company page. www.londonstockexchange.com (If you want the exact PDF pages I used from the Interim Report I can show page references — the AW1 cost/financing and EBITDA guidance are in the Chairman’s statement and the condensed accounts; I cited these above.) ampeak.energy

6) Practical next steps (if you want deeper / more conservative modelling)

If you’d like, I can immediately (I’ll do it now in this chat — no waiting):

• build a consolidated DCF model (spreadsheet) that: (a) pulls the company H1 2025 numbers, (b) explicitly models AW1 construction cashflows, project debt servicing, minority interest (the ~24.7% non-controlling interest), and consolidation effects, (c) models alternative revenue mixes for AW1 (contracted vs merchant), and (d) produces fully adjusted EPS / NAV per share under multiple scenarios (base / downside / upside).
• or produce a clean downloadable Excel with the DCF, sensitivity table, and the key inputs (so you can change discount rates, maintenance capex, growth, EBITDA). Tell me which you prefer and I’ll prepare it straight away (I already have the main inputs and can produce the spreadsheet with the assumptions above).

Bottom line (short)

Using company guidance for AW1 (EBITDA £9m) and current MeyGen cashflow, a simple DCF with a 8% discount implies equity ≈ £67m or ~9–9.6 pence per share (base case). This is sensitive to discount rate, construction / timing and net debt consolidation (range in my sensitivity: ~5p → 18p per share). The company’s published documents and RNS announcements confirm AW1 is now financed and expected to be transformative — but the market still prices in substantial risk / dilution, so please treat this as an initial, transparent model rather than a firm buy/sell recommendation. ampeak.energy

Would you like the detailed Excel with every line item (I’ll generate it with the assumptions above), or would you prefer I immediately expand the DCF to include AW2 / MeyBESS upside scenarios and a consolidated debt schedule? Pick one and I’ll produce it now.