Member Info for flundra

As long as Beelzebub's lighting his flames using gas from HALO..

Cavendish Nuclear is a subsidiary of Babcock I believe (it certainly used to be). Redhall have framework agreement with Cavendish.

HALO indicated a while back they might set up a secondary trading facility whilst they were off-market. I don't think it's been set up though.

Worth a call to the company perhaps.

….

I’d like to have seen more info too, but it’s silly to suggest HALO "lacks governance" because a vote on TEOL hasn’t been called. It's market-ready with sound governance.

The BoD will have thought about whether to have an EGM/vote. They didn't have to call one. Like with T101, it was very obviously in the company's interests to proceed with TEOL. The BoD were perhaps eventually guided by what happened with T101, a similar deal in many respects, where (literally) only one shareholder with just a thousand-odd shares voted against. No point incurring unnecessary expense/delay for a foregone conclusion. T101 was the first deal under the new strategy so warranted a vote if only for that reason.

Same point, you're still wrong to intimate both that India have accepted that the arbitration Tribunal can correctly rule on tax, and that India has agreed to comply with the forthcoming ruling whatever's in it. India believes its domestic tax law trumps the treaty. Acceptance or not by India of the ruling, process and enforceability, remain as issues, as reflected in very little value attributed in the SP to the claim. Hopefully we'll get a chunky award, and India will pay up promptly, so as not to discourage foreign trade and investment going forward, but we'll have to wait and see.

All just imo of course.

http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/over-7-billion-people-face-unsafe-air-state-global-air-2018

Right Probb. Adding to your coal point, replacing coal is indeed critical globally, to prevent millions of deaths a year, and climate change. Here's some grim reading about it, very depressing. Modern EU mining and civil nuclear safety standards are high, and pose far fewer risks, without preventing the betterment of lives, whilst other renewables are developed to provide reliable alternatives. Let's get on with permitting this. If the Poles can open a new coal mine in Silesia (unbelievable though that is), the Spaniards can permit Salamanca. An already well-advanced uranium mining project, by a former uranium mine, in a mining area with modern operational mines, mining a product to help save us all with well managed risk.

The partial recovery in the SP might indicate this is coming to fruition. Let's hope so.

The arbitration proceedings have been going on for ages, and it is the process the parties to the treaty have to follow.

Are you saying India have accepted at some point in the last 6 months that tax demands are in fact covered under the arbitration proceedings? Where do you get that from?

https://www.livemint.com/Companies/jiEQ2hC4mUT1Xq7h6Gu48N/India-may-not-accept-arbitration-orders-on-Cairn-Vodafone-t.html

I think one problem is that India might just ignore the Tribunal decision, for example if India persists with the view that tax isn't covered by the treaty. I'm not sure about legal enforceability of the decision, but suspect it would be difficult if not impossible. India would not want to become uninvestable for international investors though, so adopting such a hard line would be a double edged sword. They'll have to think hard about it. Lots of issues in play and complexity here. I reckon CNE will end up getting something between zilch and $1.4bn, but wouldn't want to be more precise than that!

Unique circumstances, limited precedent re interpretation of these aspects of an International Treaty, so I imagine the Tribunal could rule and award anything, black white or various shades of grey. Enforcement could be an issue too, India may well just not pay, or spin it out, even if CNE "win" hands down. Could India also perhaps appeal any ruling/award, I'm not sure how the Tribunal process works? I'd have expected to see a more specific anomaly/spike in the graph if there'd been a leak. Wait and see imo.

Quite. Having bombarded us with so much repetitive promotional material over the years, BKY should imo be giving us more warts-and-all detail and commentary now. They can't and shouldn't respond to every rumour, but I'd like to hear more from them about all the stuff emanating direct from the various authorities and from Reuters for example. It's hardly an easy time for shareholders...I'm holding but only really because I feel like a deer in the headlights. Don't really know whether to buy hold or sell!

The Reuters story is saying that one reason that the municipality denied the urbanisation permit on Dec 19 is because BKY doesn't own the land, ie some tenements required are not yet granted. That's at odds with Sean's comments.

SP going nicely though.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spain-uranium-berkeleyenergia/spanish-village-denies-building-permit-to-berkeley-energia-uranium-project-idUSKCN1OL0EY

This perhaps suggested otherwise, link courtesy of Nigwit posting on 23 Dec. A firmer statement from BKY would be welcome if it's a clear cut issue.

Agree light on detail and not very clear imo.

Also, Twelve new investigation permits for gold, lithium, cobalt, tin and rare earths applied for. Obvious synergies with work done to date. Hints of a plan B?

And any significance to so many tenements still pending grant?

I think it's certainly safe to say only a clown would have voted against. AC's pulled off another blinder imo. Particularly if the consideration really is only the new 19.25% ordinary shares. It leaves the balance of the Engie facility intact, and there's additional structured finance proposed too.

Malcy's flash

https://www.malcysblog.com/2019/01/amerisur-cairn/

Sounds like CNE thought it went well. Fingers crossed.

Where's this CSN approval of those 2 studies then?

https://www.reuters.com/article/spain-uranium-berkeley-energia/spain-watchdog-oks-safety-studies-for-planned-uranium-mine-source-idUSL8N1YP4R3

I think we're expecting CSN approval this week of the two reports referred to in Reuters' article last week. I've been presuming those reports are BKY's "responses" to the 2 "issues" raised by CSN in the summer (BKY's language). Also, that the CSN board is now re-organised and their full completed report is due shortly. It's unknown yet whether that report will be generally favourable. Then the main hurdle becomes whether the national government will approve the project. The Reuters report last Autumn quoted anonymous sources saying no chance of approval, but that's uncorroborated. Regional approval looks favourable, and local approval would be a formality if there is national and regional approval.

Lots of uncertainty, but the more approved reports in the process the better, and it hopefully becomes harder (eg legally) to stymie this well-advanced project, the more approvals there are. The stakeholders will be scrutinising process closely.

All just my opinion and understanding of course. Still holding.

Malcy says

Yesterday’s Sunday Times had what looked like a well informed ‘scoop’ suggesting that Premier were looking to buy a package of North Sea assets from Chevron for around $1.5bn and to fund it in cash. Given that its market cap is only a shade north of £500m and it has a well publicised debt mountain, even selling all or part of its Latin American business, which I think they would be loathe to do, would not square the circle.

I’m sure that Premier have looked at this asset package, as they would anything in their back yard, but surely a combination of the difficulty of rationalising their existing asset base with financing such a huge package would be bordering on the impossible. However if you do see an advert for an oil company with assets in Mexico, South East Asia and the North Falklands Basin in the trade press you will know what it is…