Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I like where you are going with this but you should seak a better return on your 20K
;)
He has managed to get a dubious thread title away though TBTT and RAMMAN.......!
just one of the tactics employed by the unscrupulous........... :()
All the best (careful out there............ :)
Proselenes why ar eyou here again? Ohh yeah you have no interest... muppets
You from which planet, mate ?
Completely out of context !
Putting as positive a spin on the proceedings as I dare.
Not a firmly held belief or something that I can substantiate.
Does the review, if it goes ahead, serve a positive purpose for BPC when it comes to public opinion of future exploitation drilling?
Why?
If through the review the government prove the robustness of the EIA and the operating conditions that BPC will be held to be as stringent as possible, over and above those already drilling with GOM operate within. Does that offer sufficient assurance to the bahamian public who were 50/50 on the drill.
Those who acknowledge the need for the financial benefit that it can bring but are rightly protective of their beautiful islands.
Hold/buy/sell it is your decision. Make sure you are comfortable with it and take ownership of your decision.
There will be those who tell you everything is going to be brilliant. There will be those who tell you the drill will never happen now. They can't both be right.
There will be sound arguments on both sides. But the outcome is not yet known by anyone on this BB no matter what they might try to have you believe.
My 8 year old could come up with something better than that!!
Nice, try, Proselenes. But completely irrelevant.
Not even relevant-try harder next time
You do wonder how a judge is going to see this for example. The company openly states in 1st Dec 2020 RNS that they could be in a position where they dont have the funds to complete drilling .................
.........In circumstances where neither the Conditional Convertible Note facility nor the Zero-coupon Facility are available (for example, where the conditions precedent set out in the Conditional Convertible Note Subscription Agreement are not satisfied or waived by the Subscribers), the Company may not have sufficient cash to complete the drilling of the Perseverance #1 well and/or may not have sufficient cash to undertake the full scope of the work program planned for Trinidad and Tobago and Suriname in 2021. In such circumstances the Company would look to secure funding by way of alternative sources, as detailed above. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company would be successful in securing any such alternative funding. .......
petrod MATD what a dog made nothing on it in 18 months, RBD and UJO, however, look very interesting all of a sudden
£5k could be worth £35,000 by Feb... its that simple
£20k £70k
£50k £350k
etc
Agree Gringopete,
We all knew it was going to happen (hoped it wasn't). At least now when it gets thrown out, the SP can now concentrate on whats in front of it rather than speculation about court action.
We'll take our chances icemax thanks for your concerns
Clearly even the applicants dont believe they have a case, hence the application at the last minute. I believe their sole hope is that their actions prevent BPC from drilling at the scheduled time. They realise that is enough to bring the drilling issue to a halt for the forseeable future, and buy them time to agitate further. In that sense their actions are targetting BPC directly, given that it is them who will suffer the direct financial consequences.
Further, they don't want BPC involved in their action as they do not have the funds to post the size of bond that will be required.
It sounds like they are on a hiding to nothing witheir case and pinning their hope on the courts placing a temporary halt on the drill, while also hoping the wheels of justice turn very slowly. Personally, I'm hopeful their action will get nowhere, and as BPC's lawyer intimated, will fall at the first hurdle.
Hi Tiger, I agree that there's a chance that this could be thrown out in a week's time. There's also a chance that a stay of the Environmental Authorisation may be granted, either pending a decision or in the granting of any review.
The application for the JR does not merit a stay in the operations of BPC, therefore the drill can proceed unless any stay in proceedings is granted pending the outcome - this in my view would be highly unlikely.
This JR application IF successful would in itself be costly and extremely high risk to the applicant.
Many JRs have been upheld only for the result to remain as it was but with only a few minor adjustments to the original decision. So whilst perhaps a moral victory it is an expensive exercise.
Yes Bryon but he will want that and the his next course will be injuction... it aint happening
And as has already been mentioned - The action taken by the QC is only an application for a Judicial Review.
HI Icemax!
It's an application for a judicial review against a government decision.
The bar for obtaining a JR is high. You need to show compelling evidence that the government has acted against the law.
This suit doesn't - at least from the reporting in the local press, the environmentalists don't seem to have a clear case to make. And - simply - the application is out of time; it should have been made months ago. And its timing is clearly malicious and designed to harass BPC as they conduct their lawful business.
IMO, this application will get thrown out. Might take about a week for the judge to read all the paperwork though.
Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached.
The three principles of judicial review are as follows: The Constitution is the supreme law of the country. The Supreme Court has the ultimate authority in ruling on constitutional matters. The judiciary must rule against any law that conflicts with the Constitution.
Here is a little write up from a firm of solicitors found on the web - there will be many other similar versions to be found: -
https://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/the-law/judicial-review-process
Whilst this is not about oil - it is about planning processes and EIA in UK law.
I'm pleased that this application for a Judicial review has finally appeared. We can now stop speculating and hopefully an answer before the drill. By the 15th we will know if it's been thrown out or if the Judge thinks it's got some merit.
Trek
You are right and I ope that it dont get that far,but it's the courts decision
No, it's not a judicial review - it's an application for a review and, if granted, a stay of the Environmental Authorisation. This is the Bahamas - anything could happen.
Anything lower than 2.3 and I'm all in... come on Mr Smith.. keep spouting your pish
Environmental activists winning a case against a countries government when they had 10 years to oppose the decision. Yea good luck with that one.
Absolutely no chance in winning that battle.
There's less chance of that happening than the UK reversing off payroll rules and scrapping IR35 on the private sector.