Member Info for Moneymaker2015

Thanks for the update Bunion.

SAU’s comments have stayed within the listing rules here. In the last RNS BMV states “settled through the issuance of 150 million shares, or a blend of shares and cash, on approval of a prospectus by the FCA. This is expected to be concluded by year end”. SAU’s announcement at the end of Oct stated: “Receipt of the balance of 150m BMV shares (late 2021, tbc by FCA in London)”.

Both sides have mentioned by the end of this year, which only has 4 weeks left. It would only have to be publicly announced if the prospectus was going to take considerably longer than this period, so it isn’t as though he has produced news outside of what is permitted.

It’s not that they’re avoiding paying the bills, the RNS indicates it’s a set-off against a warranty claim. There isn’t necessarily any issue with doing so. Unfortunately, MNRG effectively took on the role as a guarantor, so is forced to pay the vendor as itself doesn’t have grounds to set-off any sums. Basically, without a controlling interest, MNRG cannot force BritNRG to make payment to the vendor and MNRG is then required to take-up that slack.

Depending on how you look at the situation, if BritNRG / PP was willing to let MNRG take the fall now, rather than settling the sums owed, what would of happened if a dispute arose over ownership of BritNRG…

Well it looks like BritNRG is doing well…

https://mobile.twitter.com/BritNRGLtd/status/1465969538596487175

I don’t want to get my hopes up, but this is definitely one asset that MNRG need to fight for rather than just throwing in the towel.

I’m of the same mind, if MNRG is lucky enough to recoup its costs, I’d be surprised if it ever saw a future penny from BritNRG. As you say, it’s a waste of 2 years and another failed prospect.

- Gold Ridge now seems more like an early stage exploration, rather than a near term revenue.
- MetalNRG ECO isn’t likely to provide any substantial revenues any time soon.
- LVG was a failed prospect, but right about now seems like it would have been the better choice.
- The Uranium project isn’t doing anything right now and possibly never will.

The thing I’m wondering is what will happen with the notes that were converted? Millions of shares have hit the market to enable us to receive a holding in BritNRG. Surely, we should still maintain a significant holding in the company, or be able to get the shares cancelled if they are still held by BritNRG.

Unfortunately Bunion, you’re speaking to 2nr bitter investors or passed investors should I say, so their views will always be negative.

Braindead was on a loss here (BMV), stated he sold because a deal was never going to be concluded, then the following week the deal was settled with SAU and he wasn’t able to buy back in for the same price he sold.

Ronald on the other hand lost money on DISH (which realistically would never have made a decent sum of money, even if it had succeeded). He makes himself feel better by slating Aidan Bishop’s other projects, as he feels his failed investment was Aidan’s fault and not his own.

Seems like a waste of time to myself, as if it were me I’d spend the researching other prospects. However, for these two it seems to make them feel better about their bad decision making.

The funding is sorted, just read the RNS’s:

26/03/20 - “The Company has entered into a legally binding agreement with a South Korean company in respect of non-dilutive funding”.

28/09/20 - “The Company is pleased to update shareholders that it has received the first tranche of funding”.

19/07/21 - “The Company has remained in close contact with our Korean funding partners who have had an encouraging site visit, produced and interesting video for their clients, and expressed their delight at the recent conclusion of the deal with Southern Gold”.

Without seeing the actual terms of the agreement, shareholders won’t know the precise arrangement with the funder. However, the signing of a legally binding agreement indicates that funding will be received. The BoD did other none-dilutive funding options available though, prior to entering into the current agreement.

You can hold any shares in a ISA/SIPP, provided the company is listed on a “recognised” stock exchange. From a practical perspective, you may want to to make sure you are able to trade the share through your broker also.

It depends who the majority shareholders are and what their holding is. Considering MNRG was supposed to have a 50% holding, no other shareholder would have had that high of a stake also. The crux is that if there are majority shareholders that are also working at BritNRG I.e. PR, they may be able to offer themselves significant salaries, rather than paying out dividends to all other shareholders I.e. MNRG.

I’ve been wondering what the remaining holding is in BritNRG myself. If it’s 10%+, at 4,000 barrels per month, that would actually be sufficient to justify the current mcap itself. Although it’s no where near what was originally planned, it would mean things aren’t a complete disaster here. If it’s less than 5% however, it’s almost worthless, unless BritNRG does get towards 1,000bopd.

Having been a holder off both, and very lucky to take a small profit from SXX, there is little to no similarity.

Fundamentally, SXX had a huge operation, but no funding to take it forwards, so was forced to sell on the cheap. EUA has a producing mine already (WK) and funding available to bring MT into production should it wish to do so. It was approached by numerous parties in 2019 enquiring about purchasing part or all of its assets. EUA is looking at the selling option because it wants to, not because it has to.

The “shortly” wording is subjective. EUA has been around for 20+ years, so 12 months could be considered shortly by that comparison.

As I say, from being a holder of both, there’s more differences between SXX and EUA than there is similarities.

Thanks Keith, I was just about to look through POW’s announcements for drill results.

It appears there’s decent levels of Nickel, but also elevated levels of Cobalt, the two things we want to see.

With this interest in MFP and the MoU in LVR, KAV are not messing around when it comes to exploration. If we get positive results from the KSZ, next year could be game changing for the company.

Unfortunately it’s just going to be a waiting game here. Holding 50% in BritEnergy, and BritNRG as a result, meant the mcap / share price was considerably undervalued. Goldridge sounds like it has a long way to go before it could be sold for a decent price or before it could be brought into production and the waste to energy project has little value.

Until this issue with BritNRG is concluded or the value of Goldridge can be realised, there’s little reason for new investors to come on board.

The whole situations frustrating because with the revenues that BritNRG is providing, surely it would have been better for MNRG in the long term to try and overcome the issues rather than just pulling the plug on the entire agreement.

This green box that keeps appearing does make me laugh. There’s only a small number of BMV holders that tend to read the posts here anyway and most of us have Braindead filtered. The constant de-ramping seems like complete wasted effort…

Given the time remaining and that any other parties still need to carry out due diligence, a sale this year will have always been a bit of a stretch to be fair.

It’s odd that they would look at listing on another exchange considering we’re looking at selling potentially all of the assets. Unless, as some have speculated before, they may be looking into the prospect of retaining the Rosgeo related assets, or just selling the assets with the intention of continuing the company for other ventures. It’s going to be interesting to see how this one pans out.

Considering the BoD has always indicated it would be take up to 6 months to Kochang up and running, there should be some operational work due to commence. This day and age everyone can be contacted remotely and the company does still have representatives over in South Korea, so using Covid travel restrictions is a bit of a measly excuse.

On the Prospectus and the website issues though:

The Prospectus is for the issuance of the remaining shares. The BoD aren’t going to unnecessarily rush to get these shares added to the market. Plus, a Prospectus is a hefty document, considering it was SP Angel who produced the last one, it’s not as though Hill Dickinson are able to copy and paste sections of it. 6 months is reasonable, unless the BoD were to pay a premium in order to get it unnecessarily pushed through.

On the website, what’s the point paying out to get the website completed if you don’t have any news to yet put on it.

Basically, because Pierpaolo Rocco was already on the MNRG board and had an interest in BritEnergy, MNRG were/are required to gain shareholder approval prior to the transaction, due to PR’s controlling interest.

Basically, PR pulled the wool over MNRG’s eyes whilst he was on the board, so MNRG are trying to get out of the agreement on a technicality, rather than footing the bill for this claim by the vendor.

Would they still be considered receivables if MNRG itself has stated it is not the owner of BritNRG? There would be no reason for it receiving these much or all of these funds unless it did own 50% interest in BritEnergy.

Apologies, as *Ian said, not Mac!

Why are people talking about the company going private? As Mac says, this was mentioned time and time again during suspension. I’ll say the same thing as I did back then:

- Whilst the BoD do have substantial holdings in the company, they do not have enough controlling interest to make such decision.
- There is no advantage to the BoD in taking the company private. They are currently looking at selling part or all of the company’s assets. A deal is yet to be tabled to shareholders, so it is not even as though the shareholder majority view differs from that of the BoD. If a deal was tabled that didn’t receive shareholder approval, the BoD cannot suddenly force a deal through by the company becoming private.
- Even if the company were to go private shareholders still maintain their percentage holding in the company, so still would get the same percentage payout under a sale or same annual dividend (if the company were to provide one).

Going private would be disadvantageous to shareholders, due to added difficulty of parting with your shareholding, but it does not mean you lose your holding or the BoD is suddenly given an ability to make decisions without shareholder approval.

So, in 2024 Gold could be heading for $4,200/oz and Silver at $77/oz. A number of analysts have been saying similar too, but this video provides a good explanation to the theories.

Just imagine Gold hitting $4,200/oz at a time that BMV may be scaling production towards the 100,000oz per annum target.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6H4LFJzgY&t=2s