Member Info for Broxburn68

News from Stop Uranio on Twitter:

"The PSOE of Castilla y León proposes to the Regional Courts to promote the paralysis of the Salamanca Project of # BKY

The PP votes against and C's abstains. Result: THE PROPOSAL IS DENIED."

https://twitter.com/villavieja_ayto/status/1012355872041979905

That's the end of this rumour then.

Due to rushing in the morning/ work/ football, etc, I must admit that I've only just watched the full video now. I can't really believe that this has had the effect on the SP as I first thought. Surely...?

It's like so many NIMBY productions with sad faced locals shaking their heads at how things will never be the same again. I've seen more animated and aggressive reactions than this against fish farms, wind turbines and houses being built on school playing fields. It's one-sided for sure but surely this can't be a cause for many PIs to cut losses and run! Can it?

NigWit may have made a good point in mentioning the general retrace of small mining stocks, plus U3O8 still remains in the doldrums at the moment. At least the SP is recovering a bit now.

Still think Theresa Ribera is worth keeping an eye on and hope her wings remain clipped in parliament. Her appointment as Energy Minister does coincide with the start of the SP slide.

Here's a link to some response from Goldseiten in Germany (usual apologies about Google Translation):

https://www.goldseiten.de/artikel/380959--Berkeley-Energia-Ltd.~-ARTE---Einseitige-Berichterstattung-und-haltlose-Behauptungen.html

Berkeley Energia came under pressure yesterday and today. The reason, in addition to the weak days in the uranium sector, is certainly the report by ARTE on the company's Salamanca mine.

Once again, an apparently activist green journalist team managed to fade the imposed compulsory levies for more than one-sided reporting.

A 30-minute report was aired on ARTE on Monday and also uploaded to Youtube to support the "green friends" with material for their online propaganda.

Take a look at the report and get a picture for yourself. Such one-sided reporting without even a statement from official company side is already pathetic. But presenting vague assertions and Stammtisch opinions as given without proof is not worthy of a journalist.

There are tens of points in the whole post put into the room by the activists and then a few times it is mentioned briefly: "There is no evidence or statistics for it".

Berkeley is the only investor there.

The company works to the highest standards one could want for a mine.

Ridiculous statements, such as the Berkeley employees coming to the meeting with alleged protective clothing, knock the bottom out of the barrel.

What the employees wear is the normal clothing of every employee in a mine and no protective clothing.

But everything is turned here by the responsible journalists against Berkeley.

We see trees being felled, but we do not see Berkeley planting two new trees for each felled tree. One has agreed on that in advance.

However, the government of the region is behind Berkeley Energia, as are many of the staff and residents of the region, but they have not been shown.

Here's a link to be the video that seems to be behind the social media rumours about the BKY mine FYI:

https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/079474-044-A/re-an-uranium-mine-on-the-doorstep/

Thanks very much indeed for sharing this easyp. I find Sean's comments very reassuring; this reaffirms my opinion that BKY is a well run and professional company. Good to know things are still on track.

Thanks very much easyp. Could you maybe mention progress on the Spanish Stock market listing?

"A group of ecologists, environmental protectors and climatological scientists have expressed their concern to the Government to include in their roadmap the closure of nuclear power plants, which, according to them, would cause an increase in emissions and polluting gases, in addition to an increase in the price of the cost of electricity in Spain".

"The promise of the new Minister of Ecological Transition, Teresa Ribera, to close all remaining nuclear power plants in the country, will increase the production of energy by fossil fuels and, with it, pollution, due to the factors of low capacity and the intermittency of solar and wind energy, the letter said.

The letter gives as an example what happened in Germany, where last year they spent 24,300 million euros over the market price for their rates of introduction of renewable energy after the closure of their nuclear power plants. "Spain can learn from Germany's error and keep its nuclear power plants operational," the experts urge.

http://sector-primario.es/ecologistas-y-cientificos-alertan-al-gobierno-de-que-cerrar-las-nucleares-disparara-las-emisiones-y-el-precio/

Sorry about the google translation, but good to see there's support for our side in Spain as well.

From ASX:

"Berkeley Energia notes the recent movement in it's share price and is not aware of any information that has not been announced which, if known, could provide an explanation"

https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20180627/pdf/43w313zbht8ssp.pdf

I've been doing a bit of research on the main personnel involved in running the CSN from a starting point of complete ignorance. My conclusion, which is of course open to debate, is that it seems highly unlikely that they will stand in the way of granting our permits in due course. They're generally experienced in government and/or mining and have a profile which suggests they will be sympathetic to the BKY cause..

https://www.csn.es/en/el-pleno/miembros-del-pleno

http://www.europapress.es/sociedad/medio-ambiente-00647/noticia-pp-apoya-manuel-rodriguez-marti-secretario-general-csn-podemos-opone-psoe-cs-erc-abstienen-20170307173708.html

The main issue may be the appointment of Theresa Ribera as Spanish Energy Minister. Ribera previously served as secretary of state for climate change 2008-11. Since then, she became director of the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (Iddri) in Paris and sat on the board of several climate-related organisations. She is known as an advocate for clean energy and international cooperation on climate change.

All wind and gas.

The good news is that Sánchez government does not have a majority in parliament, however, which may constrain the government’s ability to effect change.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/06/05/spain-italy-leadership-changes-raise-hopes-eu-climate-ambition/

Anyway, no RNS suggests no suspension of activities at BKY...so far. However, what's happened to our Spanish Stock Market listing that was supposed to happen on 7 June? Can BKY elaborate on these rumours? I think we all need some updates please!!

Hi Captainjameson, with regard to the NSC III permit, this should be completed fairly quickly, certainly not taking two years. To quote from CSN: "When the facility is ready to start operation, the licensee must report this fact to the CSN so that it can conduct an inspection visit. After this, if the result is positive, the Council will issue a notification for the commissioning which will send to the licensee and the Ministry." https://www.csn.es/en/proteccion-radiologica/autorizacion-de-instalaciones From what I gather from the prospectus, your timescales for Zona 7 and Alameda look to be correct. The rationale behind this may be to fund these developments from free cash flow rather than have a higher up front cost. It appears that the CSN do not have a track record of refusing permits for other nuclear sites in Spain so IMHO it's just a matter of time before all this is resolved - hopefully sooner rater than later.

Apologies - I've missed some developments on the Global X front. Looks like ALL miners are being reduced in holdings here: https://sightlineu3o8.com/2018/05/the-global-x-uranium-etf-resets-their-expectations/

I believe that the listing takes effect on Wednesday, Forsterite. I must admit that I did think "other uranium shares are available" after reading the prospectus, but selling at this SP doesn't fit with me. I think this company is really well run, with sensible remuneration packages for directors to boot, but I do wish there was a bit more upfront honesty about any potential permitting hold-ups and any progress fed back to us small PIs. Sorry, grouchomarx, but your comment about Global X is wrong. I'll re-post the following: New York-based ETF provider Global X Funds has announced that the Global X Uranium ETF (URA US) will transition to a new index, the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. https://www.etfstrategy.co.uk/global-x-funds-uranium-etf-to-adopt-new-index-33882/ https://www.globalxfunds.com/content/files/URA-sumpros.pdf Stocks in the new index are screened for liquidity and weighted according to free-float market capitalisation. A specific capping methodology is used at the time of the semi-annual index review to enhance diversification. The maximum weight of a pure play company is 20%, with non-pure play company weightings capped at 4.5%. Further, the sum of weights of all components that have a market capitalisation smaller than $100 million must not exceed 5%. The fund is expected to begin implementation of the change on or after 2 April 2018. The main point from our perspective is that as our market cap, even at his low SP, is c. $180m so we would not fall into the category of the restricted percentage of small caps. This suggests that we would not be a target for selling off to fulfil this criteria. Here's a link to the latest Global X URA ETF holdings to maybe reinforce this point: http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/holdings?t=URA&region=usa&culture=en-CA

I'm afraid that it looks like this permitting situation could drag on for quite some time. It seems to me that this is behind the regular shifting back of the timescale for entering full operation. It looks like we will have some decision on the NSC II application by the end of this year, but no doubt there will be appeals. The final NSC III permit should hopefully be obtained reasonably swiftly once the first two stages have been cleared. At least the company is in a very strong financial position to be able to cope with these delays. In the meantime, we'll still benefit from any rise in U3O8; decent rise in spot price last month but still no movement on the long term contract price, hence stagnant SP: https://www.cameco.com/invest/markets/uranium-price

This may take out some of the uncertainty caused by the recent change of government: P54 of prospectus: "The radioactivity and water permits which are granted by the national authorities are �ruled permits� (permisos reglados), meaning that they must be granted if the legal requirements are met and, as a result, they cannot be denied just on the basis of political considerations."

Page 40 of prospectus: "It is expected that the Salamanca Project will not reach steady state production prior to 2020"

From Prospectus: The Retortillo deposit will include a uranium treatment plant and a final storage of the radioactive mining waste backfilled to the exploited pit. Due to the radioactivity linked with these facilities, the obtaining of three permits from the Ministry of Energy, Tourism and Digital Agenda is required, namely: the prior authorisation (autorizaci�n previa o de emplazamiento) (�NSC I�), the construction works authorisation (autorizaci�n de construcci�n) (�NSC II�) and the final operating authorisation (autorizaci�n de explotaci�n) (�NSC III�). The first two permits allow for the construction of the radioactive facilities namely the treatment plant and the definitive storage as a pit backfill, while NSC III approval allows for the commencement of radioactive activities once the NSC has conducted a review that the facilities comply with the conditions set out in NSC I and NSC II. For instance, before granting NSC III approval, the NSC must confirm that the facilities are located exactly where authorised, so that the constructions strictly correspond with the approved project or so that it is safe to start operating. NSC I for the Retortillo deposit was obtained on 15 September 2015. The authorisation was challenged before the contentious-administrative Courts and proceedings are ongoing however, NSC I remains valid 47 and fully enforceable and has not been suspended. The application for NSC II was filed on 7 September 2016 and is currently pending. The term of the proceedings were suspended by Resolution of 18 January 2017 until the NSC issues its mandatory report on the NSC II application.

Here's a link to today's SOH interview if it's not been posted already by the way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPon0HDj_K0

This comes as no surprise to me after last year's results, but I agree that this is actually very good news despite previous assurances that no placing was required. If this increases the pace of progress of the projects, it's going to add value here in a shorter timescale and most importantly bring forward revenue. Good to see strong II interest as you say. My guess is that we could see a sustained rise in the SP in the following months if the good news flow regarding new deals is maintained.

Valid comments NigWit and Baht. If secure supply is paramount, this is bound to lessen the chance of them agreeing to a takeover. The reasons I think takeover talk will resurface is the sheer level of interest we are bound to attract once the price of Uranium rises. Referring to 2010, I believe that this deal was very close to being agreed with Severstal but was ultimately taken off the table by BKY mainly due to a spike in U3O8 prices around that time (c.$60). The offer was AUS$2 (�1.23) per share, valuing us at around �200m even then. There was strong interest from KEPCO as well. The BKY project has advanced dramatically since of course. http://www.iii.co.uk/articles/13735/berkeley-fails-agree-terms-severstal https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/berkeley-resources-russian-deal-in-doubt-t72sk5g357g

Fair comment, but if any contracts have been signed with regard to supply over a period of time, any party taking over would be obliged to honour these agreements. Their aim is to achieve above average returns on investment as any other similar fund. The Omanis are an investment fund with a diverse portfolio; some of OIF's largest investments include Ireland's Jurys Inns Hotels, the United Arab Emirates' Dubai Mercantile Exchange, and India's Quippo Infrastructure Equipment, Nimbus Communications and Housing Development Finance Corporation. Pretty diverse.