Member Info for flundra

There's clearly a looot of money trying to get in to the sector via ANIC and presumably New Agrarian too, which is great. Hang on to hats, take up the open offer if you can, and enjoy the ride into 2022 and beyond imo. Some of the investees are clearly almost ready to pop.

A mighty long time at huge cost probably :( Legally (and technically) it looks very clear in BKY’s favour though.

Agree. 100% performance based remuneration (albeit temporary and the options generous) incentivises the directors, protects cash, and is positive for shareholders. Now for a nice juicy deal please. We might even be smiling in 2022, you never know :)

Ps Mcmorrow seems to be emerging as the key man here and the RNS language has switched from "mining" to "natural resources". Does this perhaps suggest they have an o&g opportunity in mind where mcmorrow has an interest, Dunraven, Circle etc? I know he has other mining interests too though Conroy Karelian etc so perhaps that's overthinking this.

All good questions P1D.
International arbitration court for any compensation/damages case maybe.
Spanish courts for the JR perhaps. I'm not sure the current crop of Spanish politicians or public servants are too bothered about the law, and sincerely hope the judiciary are.
Good RNS today. OIA's case looks like a try on ("no merit"). They clearly didn't get an injunction to stop the conversion at least.

That may well be the best approach.

The RNS language is very legalistic (eg CSN's "discriminatory" and "arbitrary" decision, and best of all "not legal"!!). So it looks to me like lawsuits are coming. Abuse of process by CSN in league with MITECO has been blatant. So perhaps BKY should now start JR and damages proceedings, and simultaneously without prejudice discussions to relinquish the licences if the project can't proceed. These can be stayed if an administration prepared to act legally ever comes along!

BKY will also have to defend the OIA lawsuit whatever.

JR and damages lawsuits now surely?
We need an update on OIA too.

Hope this Form-II's all it's cracked up to be.

And how long to withdraw all the proceedings around the world I wonder?

it's wintry days like today (high pressure, light winds, bit cloudy) where much of the damage gets done. Nearly two thirds of our leccy from fossil fuels (including coal), a lame 20% ish from all renewables, and sadly only about 14% from the hopefully-not-completely-lost-yet opportunity nuclear.

https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live

Yes quite. Reading this stuff you just hope and pray the lawyers have got this process 100% nailed down and a zero tolerance approach to any more ******* about by GOI. This needs putting to bed.

Options in lieu of fees, good in principle at this stage imo

GVH/the.Italian
NA is good news imo, certainly in theory, and hopefully in practice too.
GVH - yes, the suspicion I have and alluded to this week is, whether Jim and mates might try to take unfair advantage of NA. An example might be Jim selling some of his "personal" shares in ANIC, to fund purchase of his "PE" shares in NA. Much of it's done through corporate vehicles etc and there may for example be tax advantages to be had switching some personal beneficial interest from ANIC into NA, even though that isn't what we've been told NA is for. New PE money into NA is fine if it can't go into ANIC, whoever's behind it, Jim or whoever. Just guessing but it might account for some of the SP drop. ANIC seems well protected and partnered with NA on current and future investments in the investee companies.

In theory NA is a positive development and shouldn't impact negatively on ANIC. The 4 Nov RNS is effectively saying NA is a vehicle set up for the sole limited purpose of getting new private equity funding in, that wants in (that's good!), but cannot acquire ANIC shares. And a mechanism's been set up to deal with conflicts etc. Whether it works in practice is another question.

BKY have presumably said no to OIA wanting to quit and are holding them to the investment agreement. So OIA have seemingly launched a widely framed lawsuit seeking termination of the agreement on every conceivable legal ground.

What will BKY's response be and how far will OIA get in court I wonder. OIA will certainly want to urgently stop the upcoming loan note conversion so news soon perhaps.

Any views?

Not great imo. Basically we need more nuclear power, and should have realised this years ago. The paradox is that it’s easier for cowardly politicians to continue with fossil fuel emissions (the status quo), than increase use of the tried and tested solution of nuclear, alongside renewables. The vocal fearmongering of some “Green” groups, and an irrational approach to nuclear’s minimal risk are combining to finish us all off, together with the planet we live on.

https://ourworldindata.org/
This website’s useful for example.
Fatalities per terawatt hour of energy produced:
Coal: 24.6 deaths
Nuclear: 0.07 deaths

And solar and wind produce more emissions than clean safe green nuclear too.

The conclusion? “Phase down” coal. And the likes of Spain are “phasing out” nuclear.

Who actually is happy with that, and the way policy is heading? It’s goodbye world isn’t it? Nuts.

It's unfortunate OIA want out. They should join BKY's fight against CSN and the government, assuming their approach isn't reflecting a fundamental policy change in Oman against nuclear.

We need an RNS detailing BKY's approach to the OIA claim ("considered to be without merit, will be vigorously defended", that sort of thing).

I agree there's no progress with the current CSN and government atm, so until that changes, BKY should pursue legal proceedings against them imo, which could be stayed if and when circumstances change, or a favourable regime comes to power. BKY's case looks very strong (eg CSN2 looks like it's wrong in law). This year Vattenfall got nearly a third of its international court damages claim (£1.2bn of £3.7bn) against the German government, just for compensation for lost profits on electricity that would have been generated from its nuclear plants there following the 2011 moratorium. Spain hasn't outlawed BKY's project (despite the government's efforts to do so), so any damages and compensation ought to be significant. Time to get on with proceedings though and force the authorities to the table (initially judicially reviewing CSN2 imo), it'll take forever.

A mature approach would have seen compensation discussions underway already, but I doubt that's happened.

Baldmark, hopefully it IS a good development. ANIC's RNS effectively said NA has been established to take PE money currently locked out of ANIC. And that the whole (ANIC + NA) is greater than the sum of the parts. Greater financial muscle together.

Should be fine as long as ANIC shareholders like JM etc don't try and take advantage by selling ANIC shares to fund their PE stake in New Agrarian.

The limited number of shares in ANIC that can be held by private equity being sold as they buy into New Agrarian?

Fintech's going from strength to strength with govt support (CFIT funding just announced). Big Ron (and indeed AUGM) supportive.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/government-treasury-fintech-tech-nation-b964895.html