Connect with us

Energy

Nova Scotia Supreme Court Awards IBC Costs at Four (4) Times the Standard Tariff Plus Disbursements Following Dismissal of Ucore’s Motion

Avatar

Published

on

—  Ucore Fails to Respond to Rule 68 Offer of Judgment  —

AMERICAN FORK, Utah, Nov. 20, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — In a decision dated November 18, 2020, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court awarded costs to IBC Advanced Technologies, Inc. (“IBC”) against Ucore Rare Metals, Inc. (“Ucore”), after dismissing Ucore’s contempt motion in favor of IBC. The Nova Scotia Supreme Court assessed the amount of costs payable to IBC at four times the Tariff amount that would normally apply, plus disbursements.  The Court referred to the fact that allegations of contempt are very serious matters and, since Ucore was unsuccessful, there should be cost consequences beyond the ordinary Tariff.

IBC’s press release dated September 4, 2020 described the Court’s ruling in IBC’s favor in dismissing Ucore’s contempt motion.  Ucore had suggested that IBC’s filing of a Motion for Summary Judgment in Utah Federal Court was contemptuous.  Ucore sought to punish IBC for exercising its legal rights in Utah.  Ucore’s attempt failed and at that time, the Court awarded costs to IBC, with the amount to be determined.  Please see link below:

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nova-scotia-supreme-court-rules-in-ibcs-favor–denies-ucores-attempt-to-prevent-ibc-from-filing-motion-for-summary-judgment–awards-ibc-costs-301124650.html 

IBC is very pleased with the Court’s rulings and is increasingly confident in its case and prospects for success.

Rule 68 Offer of Judgment

On October 26, 2020, IBC filed a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, wherein Ucore had fourteen (14) days to pay IBC $250,000 to settle all outstanding litigation with IBC. Ucore failed to accept the Offer of Judgment within the required time period, thereby precluding its recovery of attorney fees and costs. Such failure may also subject Ucore to liability for payment of costs incurred by IBC from the date of the service of the Offer of Judgment.  The Offer of Judgement is a tangible indication of IBC’s confidence that it will win a substantial award at trial; it also protects IBC from paying attorney fees and costs, and provides IBC with the ability to collect costs from Ucore that will be incurred from this point forward.

Background of IBC

IBC is an award-winning provider of proprietary and innovative MRT products and processes, based on green chemistry and green engineering, to premier customers worldwide.  IBC’s SuperLig®, AnaLig® and MacroLig® products and associated processes are used in manufacturing, analytical and laboratory applications.

In 1988, IBC was founded by and named after three Brigham Young University professors: Dr. Reed M. Izatt, Dr. Jerald S. Bradshaw and Dr. James J. Christensen.

IBC is the proud sponsor of the International Izatt-Christensen Award.  This Award, founded in 1991 and named after Dr. Reed M. Izatt and Dr. James J. Christensen, two of the founders of IBC, recognizes excellence in macrocyclic and supramolecular chemistry.  It is known as one of the most prestigious small awards in chemistry.  The Award is presented annually at the International Symposium on Macrocyclic and Supramolecular Chemistry (“ISMSC”).  Two of the early recipients of the Award later shared the 2016 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.  The precursor of the ISMSC was founded by Dr. Izatt and Dr. Christensen in 1977.

A privately-held Utah corporation, IBC counts among its shareholders a multi-billion dollar international manufacturing company, which has been a major customer and benefactor of IBC for over thirty (30) years.  IBC has built its business upon integrity, trust and excellence and values its close association with such top-tier companies.

IBC provides proprietary, green chemistry and green engineering SuperLig® Molecular Recognition Technology products and processes worldwide.  More information can be found at www.ibcmrt.com.

SOURCE IBC Advanced Technologies, Inc.

Related Links

www.ibcmrt.com

Source: https://www.prnewswire.com:443/news-releases/nova-scotia-supreme-court-awards-ibc-costs-at-four-4-times-the-standard-tariff-plus-disbursements-following-dismissal-of-ucores-motion-301177839.html

Energy

Solar, wind, storage superpower

Avatar

Published

on

from pv magazine Global

Tony Seba was among the first to recognize the disruptive potential of solar PV with the publication of his book “Solar Trillions” in 2010. His think tank, RethinkX, recently published a report titled “Rethinking Energy 2020-2030 – 100% Solar, Wind and Batteries is Just the Beginning.

In early December, pv magazine publisher, Eckhart Gouras, interviewed Seba and Adam Dorr, the two authors of this report. As Seba and Dorr make clear in the interview, a 100% solar-wind-battery system is not only possible, but the cheapest way to build an electricity system in the U.S. by 2030.

They introduce the concept of the “Clean Energy U-curve,” which shows that the cheapest system is actually one that involves a lot more solar PV and wind power capacity than the peak power demand profile.

But they go one step further by introducing the concept of “SuperPower”: by investing in even more solar PV and wind power than the lowest-cost system defined by the “Clean Energy U-curve,” the gain in additional energy, or “superpower,” is exponential to the money invested.

pv magazine: Achieving 100% clean electricity by 2030 seems very ambitious, but getting there would certainly be a very big step in limiting carbon emissions and climate change. Describe how you uncovered this truth that a pure SWB [solar, wind, batteries] electricity system could already be implemented in the continental United States by 2030 at a reasonable cost of under $2 trillion?

Tony Seba. “We focus in on technology disruption and its implications for humanity, for society.”

Image: Eric C. Shen

Tony Seba (TS): We focus in on technology disruption and its implications for humanity, for society. For the energy sector, the question that we asked ourselves was this: Is an electricity system composed purely of solar, wind, and batteries, with all of the other constraining assumptions that we can talk about, is it possible at all?

Because there is a mythology out there that it’s not possible, or if it’s possible, it’s going to cost zillions of dollars. Is it possible at all? And if so, is it possible by 2030? Essentially, those were the questions that we asked ourselves. So, we started from first principles. Our methodology that we have used to analyze other disruptions over the last 15 years.

Adam Dorr (AD): I would just echo what Tony said. We proceed from the basis of having a sound theoretical framework. We have a set of first principles that allows us to understand all disruptions, all technology disruptions, historically and today, and we apply that framework, the Seba Technology Disruption Framework, to this particular question of the energy disruption facing the 2020s.

What we find when we do that, is we see that all of the signs are there. That disruption is inevitable. In fact, it has already begun. This disruption of energy is sure to become a textbook example of disruption, and Tony has been pointing this out since the mid 2000s. What we discovered in this particular analysis are some of the interesting nuances of the dynamics themselves.
When we apply our approach and we use Systems Dynamics to model the relationships between solar generation, wind power generation and battery energy storage, we discovered some very interesting relationships.

Adam Dorr. “This disruption of energy is sure to become a textbook example of disruption.”

Image: AdamDorr.com

One of the most profound of these is that there is a trade-off, there is a balance between energy generation and energy storage, and you can have many different combinations of the two that will give you a functioning system.

So, the answer to the first question we asked, is it possible, is it physically possible? We discovered that “yes”, there are many, in fact, there are tens of thousands of ways to have a different mix of energy generation and energy storage that will in principle function. The question then is what is the correct balance? What is the optimal balance that will give you the most affordable, the most practical system?

pv Magazine: And that’s the “Clean Energy U-curve” you describe in your report, right?

AD: That’s exactly correct. This was a fascinating finding and confirmed research that is already beginning to see quite clearly that the correct balance, the optimal balance, between generation and storage actually has more generation than the prevailing mythology believes and less battery capacity than the prevailing mythology believes.

There’s this idea that we would need weeks, or even more than one month of long-term energy storage, in order to make a system with 100% solar and wind work. That is not true. What you need is more solar and wind power, which allows you to trade off less battery energy capacity, and when you strike the optimal balance, the correct balance, which is the bottom of the U-curve, because U-curve is a cost function. It’s telling us what different functioning, different 100% solar, wind and battery systems, what they would cost.

We find that the least expensive system is the cheapest electricity system that we can build with any technology, the bottom of the U-curve for solar, wind and batteries, is cheaper than any other conventional electricity generating technology, for example coal or natural gas.

pv Magazine: The other radical concept you discovered is that if you actually add to the investment and build even more solar and wind, you get this wonderful superpower effect. Can you describe this in more detail?

AD: Yes, you got it exactly. And that is not an obvious property of the system. That was the realization that there is a non-linear, a disproportional return on investment in superpower and that this creates extraordinary opportunities for societies that make the decision to embrace disruption, to lead with disruption. They can capture an enormous amount of value if they understand these dynamics.

The Biden Administration is proposing to spend $2 trillion to address climate challenges. Is that a coincidence?

image: Wikimedia

pv Magazine: Well, $2 trillion is still a very large sum, but it happens to be the same amount President-elect Biden is ready to invest as part of his $2 trillion climate proposal. Is this a coincidence, or have you been in touch with members of the Biden team?

TS: We do our work independently, but by coincidence, there is a small number of researchers out there that essentially have looked at the idea of 100% clean energy and the numbers seem to be converging around $2 trillion. Everyone uses different technologies. We use solar, wind and batteries. Some folks use water, some folks use different kinds of storage and so on, but there seems to be a convergence around that number.

It’s good news that [$2 trillion] seems to be the number – not what is being bandied about by the incumbents, whether it’s five or seven or $10 trillion or even not possible. So, it is coincidental, but for a good reason: that the right methodologies are converging around that number.

pv Magazine: A report by the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, builds a case to decarbonize the electricity system by 90% by 2035 for a price tag of $1.7 trillion. While their target is five years later and not 100% clean energy, they criticize the fact that most decarbonization models stretch all the way to 2050, when we are running out of time in combatting climate change.

“The 100% SWB (solar, wind, batteries) system we describe is the cheapest possible system.”

Image: Pixabay

TS: The most interesting finding is that the 100% SWB system we describe is the cheapest possible system. On a purely economic basis, there is no excuse not to do it. Keeping the existing system is more expensive than basically building the [SWB] system, without considering any of the other factors. The implication of climate makes it more urgent, but on a purely economic basis, there’s no excuse not to do this by 2030.

Incumbents are going to put up all kinds of excuses, but from a real perspective there isn’t a good excuse.

AD: Another interesting thing to think about is that sometimes the derivative of a forecast is as interesting as the forecast itself. And what I mean by that is, it’s interesting to look at the way that forecasts are themselves changing over time. And what we see is that the timelines to get to 100% clean energy are moving forward. So, that’s the derivative. First, it was 2100, then 2070, then 2060, 2050, then 2040, then 2035. So you can see that this is a separate phenomenon from the individual forecasts themselves.

pv Magazine: What struck me in the Goldman report was its forecast of clean energy cost declines. Goldman sees on average a 40% to 50% drop in the cost of solar, wind and batteries by 2035. But you are saying by 2030, we will see a drop of 70% in the cost of solar PV, 40% for onshore wind, and 80% for lithium-ion batteries. That’s a very different experience curve.

AD: If you look at that particular report, the forecasts for the growth of the market are linear or nearly linear and the improvement in costs is directly related to the expansion of the market. If the market expands linearly, the cost will not improve as quickly as if the market expands exponentially. There’s no evidence that the market will suddenly stop growing exponentially for any of these technologies.

Containerized battery storage technology.

CNW Group/Hydro-Quebec

We know of other forecasts, other projections, that said “well, next year, it’s going to turn into a linear growth trajectory, it is going to stop being exponential.” People have been saying this every year for 10, 15, 20 years. The onus is on the naysayers, I would say. We have every reason to believe that the exponential growth of the markets for solar, wind and batteries – globally, which is what controls costs (the global market) – will continue through the 2020s.

One last point to consider, and this is very important: There’s a difference between our work and other analyses. We know from the history of disruptions throughout human history, that when a disruption happens the new system that is created is almost always much larger than the system it replaces. What this means is that, even if you understand there is an S-curve, the exponential growth eventually slows down. If your new system is much larger than the old one, the exponential growth portion of the S-curve, the exponential part, will be larger than the whole old system.

And this is why the exponential growth can continue for longer than people imagined. People are stuck thinking “We are simply going to one-to-one, replace the existing system with a new technology.” This is not how disruption works. Digital cameras did not replace film cameras one-to-one. There are 10X, 100X, 1000X more digital cameras now than there ever were film cameras.

TS: We call that the “faster horse syndrome.” I mean folks thought that the car was going to be a faster horse, and in fact, it was that 10X superior technology.

pv Magazine: Or the smartphone?

TS: Yes. They thought it was basically just a slightly different cell phone, or the cell phone was a slightly different kind of landline telephone and so on. They were completely different products and systems with completely different capabilities, and that happens every single time.

It’s a phase change to a new system that is larger and cheaper in terms of per-unit price, and it totally has different metrics and behaviors. It’s never a one-to-one substitution.

Editor’s note: This is the first of a three-part series in which Tony Seba and Adam Dorr discuss their newest insights. 

This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: editors@pv-magazine.com.

Source: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2021/01/16/solar-wind-storage-superpower/

Continue Reading

Energy

Chinas Ziel der Kohlenstoffneutralität erhöht die Dringlichkeit, 100 Prozent des neuen Strombedarfzuwachses des Landes mit kohlenstofffreien Quellen zu decken

Avatar

Published

on

BEIJING, 16. Januar 2021 /PRNewswire/ — Heute veröffentlichten das Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) und die Energy Transitions Commission (ETC) den Bericht China’s Zero-Carbon Electricity Growth in the 2020s:A vital Step Toward Carbon Neutrality, der sowohl die Möglichkeit als auch die Dringlichkeit hervorhebt, die Zunahme der Stromnachfrage in China fast vollständig aus kohlenstofffreien Energieerzeugungsquellen zu decken. Der Bericht skizziert ein Szenario für 2030, das zeigt, dass eine kohlenstofffreie Stromerzeugung in China wirtschaftlich und technologisch machbar ist. Des Weiteren werden Empfehlungen für politische Maßnahmen und ein Plan zu deren Umsetzung während des 14. Fünfjahresplans skizziert.

Am 22. September 2020 kündigte Präsident Xi Jinping an, dass China bestrebt sein wird, den Höhepunkt der Emissionen vor 2030 zu erreichen und vor 2060 kohlenstoffneutral zu werden. Diese neue Klimazusage ist ein entscheidender Schritt vorwärts im globalen Kampf gegen den Klimawandel und spiegelt Chinas Entschlossenheit wider, eine verantwortungsvolle globale Führungsrolle zu übernehmen. Der Schlüssel zum Erreichen dieses Ziels liegt in der Elektrifizierung eines möglichst großen Teils der Wirtschaft und in der Sicherstellung, dass fast der gesamte Strom weit vor 2060 aus kohlenstofffreien Ressourcen erzeugt wird. Eine geeignete Strategie, die mit Chinas langfristigem Ziel der Kohlenstoffneutralität vereinbar ist, besteht darin, dafür zu sorgen, dass fast die gesamte Zunahme des chinesischen Strombedarfs durch kohlenstofffreie Stromerzeugung und ohne neue Investitionen in Kohle gedeckt wird.

Der Bericht bewertet ein Null-Kohlenstoff-Investitionsszenario für das Jahr 2030, das sich daran orientiert, was für die Dekarbonisierung des chinesischen Stromsektors bis 2050 erforderlich ist. Der Bericht geht von folgenden Annahmen aus:

  • das Stromangebot erreicht bis 2030 11.000 TWh, was einer Steigerung von 54 Prozent gegenüber dem heutigen Stand entspricht;
  • es werden keine neuen Kohlekapazitäten über die bestehenden 1.041 GW im Jahr 2019 hinaus hinzugefügt, aber es gibt einen leichten Anstieg der Kohleerzeugung, da die bestehenden Anlagen intensiver genutzt werden;
  • in Anbetracht der zunehmend wettbewerbsfähigen Wirtschaftlichkeit der erneuerbaren Energien erreicht die Wind- und Solarkapazität im Jahr 2030 1.650 GW und trägt damit 28 Prozent zur Gesamterzeugung in jenem Jahr bei; und
  • der Anteil nicht-fossiler Brennstoffe an der Gesamterzeugung beträgt 53 Prozent und liegt damit leicht über dem von der chinesischen Regierung 2016 vorgeschlagenen Ziel von 50 Prozent.

Laut der RMI- und ETC-Analyse ist das Null-Kohlenstoff-Investitionsszenario für 2030 wirtschaftlich und technologisch machbar. In China sind erneuerbare Energien und andere kohlenstofffreie Erzeugungsressourcen der kosteneffizienteste Weg, um die wachsende Stromnachfrage zu befriedigen, oder werden dies bald sein. Dies ermöglicht wiederum eine Abkehr von neuen Kohleinvestitionen.

Chinas Stromsystem kann auch mit dem höheren Anteil an erneuerbaren Energien, der im Szenario 2030 skizziert wird, weiterhin effektiv betrieben werden. Das Stromsystem kann die erhöhte Variabilität, die mit einem größeren Anteil an Wind- und Solarenergie einhergeht, bewältigen, indem die Verbindungen zwischen den Provinzen ausgebaut werden und indem die Netzflexibilität durch die Nachrüstung bestehender Kohle- und Wasserkraftwerke erhöht wird. Auch Markt- und Netzreformen werden eine wichtige Rolle spielen.

Da es für China wirtschaftlich und technisch möglich ist, die gesamte künftige Zunahme seines Energiebedarfs aus kohlenstofffreien Quellen zu decken, ist es wichtig, dass die Politik, insbesondere der 14. Fünfjahresplan, auf das Ziel eines Null-Kohlenstoff-Wachstums ausgerichtet ist. Eine klare quantitative Zielvorgabe wird Chinas Wind- und Solarentwicklungs- und Zulieferindustrie in die Lage versetzen, die Skalen- und Lernkurveneffekte zu erreichen, die Kostensenkungen möglich machen. Die Ziele würden auch politische Änderungen in vier Bereichen erfordern: Mechanismen zur Schaffung von Anreizen für Investitionen in erneuerbare Energien, Markt- und Netzreformen zur Unterstützung flexibler Stromerzeugung, verbesserte Planungsprozesse zur Anpassung an die Zunahme der erneuerbaren Energien und verbesserte technische Regelungen zur Erhöhung der Systemzuverlässigkeit.

SOURCE Rocky Mountain Institute

Source: https://www.prnewswire.com:443/news-releases/chinas-ziel-der-kohlenstoffneutralitat-erhoht-die-dringlichkeit-100-prozent-des-neuen-strombedarfzuwachses-des-landes-mit-kohlenstofffreien-quellen-zu-decken-883264629.html

Continue Reading

Energy

L’objectif de neutralité carbone de la Chine accroît l’urgence d’atteindre 100 % de la nouvelle croissance de la demande d’électricité du pays avec des sources sans carbone

Avatar

Published

on

PEKIN, 16 janvier 2021 /PRNewswire/ — Aujourd’hui, le Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) et l’Energy Transitions Commission (ETC) ont publié le document intitulé China’s Zero-Carbon Electricity Growth in the 2020s:A Vital Step Toward Carbon Neutrality, qui souligne à la fois l’opportunité et l’urgence de répondre à la croissance de la demande d’électricité en Chine presque entièrement à partir de sources de production zéro carbone. Le rapport présente un scénario à l’horizon 2030 qui démontre que la production zéro carbone est économiquement et technologiquement réalisable en Chine. Il présente en outre des recommandations pour la politique et un plan pour les mettre en place au cours du 14e plan quinquennal.

Le 22 septembre 2020, le président Xi Jinping a annoncé que la Chine s’efforcerait d’atteindre un pic d’émissions avant 2030 et de parvenir à la neutralité carbone avant 2060. Cette nouvelle promesse en matière de climat est une étape essentielle dans la lutte mondiale contre le changement climatique et reflète la détermination de la Chine à assumer un leadership mondial responsable. La clé pour atteindre cet objectif est de rendre électrique la plus grande partie possible de l’économie et de faire en sorte que la quasi-totalité de l’électricité soit produite à partir de ressources neutres en carbone bien avant 2060. La stratégie appropriée compatible avec l’objectif de neutralité carbone à long terme de la Chine devrait consister à faire en sorte que la quasi-totalité de la croissance de la capacité de production d’électricité de la Chine soit exempte de carbone, sans nouveaux investissements dans le charbon.

Le rapport évalue un scénario d’investissement zéro carbone pour 2030, aligné sur ce qui est nécessaire pour décarboniser le secteur de l’électricité en Chine d’ici 2050, et émet des hypothèses :

  • L’approvisionnement en électricité atteindra 11 000 TWh d’ici 2030, soit une augmentation de 54 % par rapport aux niveaux actuels ;
  • Aucune nouvelle capacité en charbon n’est ajoutée au-delà des 1 041 GW en place en 2019, mais on observe une légère augmentation de la production de charbon, car les ressources existantes sont utilisées plus intensément ;
  • Compte tenu de la compétitivité économique croissante des énergies renouvelables, la capacité éolienne et solaire atteindra 1 650 GW en 2030, contribuant ainsi à hauteur de 28 % à la production totale cette année-là et
  • La production totale de combustibles non fossiles atteindra 53 % du total, soit un peu plus que l’objectif de 50 % proposé par le gouvernement chinois en 2016.

Selon l’analyse du RMI et de l’ETC, le scénario d’investissement zéro carbone à l’horizon 2030 est économiquement et technologiquement réalisable. En Chine, les énergies renouvelables et les autres ressources de production sans carbone sont ou seront bientôt le moyen le plus rentable de répondre à la demande croissante d’électricité, ce qui permettra d’abandonner les nouveaux investissements dans le charbon.

Le système électrique chinois peut également continuer à fonctionner efficacement avec les niveaux plus élevés d’énergies renouvelables décrits dans le scénario 2030. Il peut gérer la variabilité accrue associée à une plus grande part des énergies éoliennes et solaires en augmentant les interconnexions entre les provinces et en augmentant la flexibilité du réseau en modernisant les centrales au charbon et hydroélectriques existantes. Les réformes du marché et du réseau joueront également un rôle important.

Étant donné qu’il est économiquement et techniquement possible pour la Chine d’assurer toute la croissance future de son approvisionnement en électricité à partir de sources neutres en carbone, il est essentiel que les politiques, en particulier le 14e plan quinquennal, soient alignées sur un objectif de croissance sans carbone. Un objectif quantitatif clair permettra aux industries chinoises de développement et d’approvisionnement en énergie éolienne et solaire de réaliser des économies à grande échelle et les effets de courbe d’apprentissage qui rendent possibles les réductions de coûts. Les objectifs nécessiteraient également des changements de politique à partir de quatre piliers : des mécanismes visant à encourager les investissements dans les énergies renouvelables, des réformes du marché et du réseau pour soutenir une énergie flexible, un processus de planification amélioré pour s’aligner sur la croissance des énergies renouvelables et une réglementation technique améliorée pour renforcer la fiabilité du système.

SOURCE Rocky Mountain Institute

Source: https://www.prnewswire.com:443/news-releases/l-objectif-de-neutralite-carbone-de-la-chine-accroit-l-urgence-d-atteindre-100-de-la-nouvelle-croissance-de-la-demande-d-electricite-du-pays-avec-des-sources-sans-carbone-858599283.html

Continue Reading

Energy

Peabody Announces Extended Early Tender Results Of Exchange Offer And Consent Solicitation, Further Extension Of Early Tender Date And Waiver And Satisfaction Of Minimum Tender Condition

Avatar

Published

on

ST. LOUIS, Jan. 15, 2021 /PRNewswire/ — Peabody (NYSE: BTU) today announced that as of 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on January 15, 2021 (the “Extended Early Tender Date“), at least $397.5 million in aggregate principal amount of its outstanding 6.000% Senior Secured Notes due 2022 (the “Existing Notes“), representing approximately 86.6% of the total outstanding principal amount of Existing Notes, had been validly tendered and not validly withdrawn in connection with Peabody’s previously announced offer to exchange (the “Exchange Offer“) any and all of its Existing Notes for (i) new 10.000% Senior Secured Notes due December 31, 2024 (the “New Co-Issuer Notes“) to be co-issued by PIC AU Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Peabody, and PIC AU Holdings Corporation, a Delaware corporation and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Peabody, and (ii) new 8.500% Senior Secured Notes due December 31, 2024 (the New Peabody Notes” and together with the New Co-Issuer Notes, the “New Notes“) to be issued by Peabody.

Peabody also announced the further extension of the Extended Early Tender Date to 11:59 p.m., New York City time, on January 25, 2021, which is the “Expiration Date” for the Exchange Offer.  Subject to satisfaction of the conditions to the Exchange Offer, each $1,000 principal amount of Existing Notes tendered on or prior to the Expiration Date will be exchanged into an amount of New Peabody Notes that, together with New Co-Issuer Notes received in exchange and the Pro Rata Payment (as defined below), will amount to $1,000 aggregate consideration received for each $1,000 of principal amount of Existing Notes tendered.  Accordingly, at the current exchange participation level of 86.6%, in exchange for each $1,000 principal amount of Existing Notes validly tendered and accepted by Peabody, participating Eligible Holders (as defined below) of Existing Notes will receive $488.06 principal amount of New Co-Issuer Notes, $488.24 principal amount of New Peabody Notes and a pro rata share per $1,000 principal amount of Existing Notes tendered by the New Early Tender Date of a cash payment of $9,420,000 equal to $23.70 in cash (the “Pro Rata Payment“), as well as the early tender premium of $10.00 in cash. 

Finally, Peabody announced that it has waived the minimum tender condition (the “Minimum Tender Condition“) of the Exchange Offer. The Minimum Tender Condition originally required that at least 95% of the aggregate outstanding principal amount of Existing Notes be validly tendered, and not validly withdrawn, prior to the Expiration Date.  Pursuant to the terms of the Amended and Restated Transaction Support Agreement (as defined below), with the approval of a majority of the Revolving Lenders (as defined below) and 66-2/3% of the Consenting Noteholders (as defined below), Peabody has waived the Minimum Tender Condition provided that at least 85% of the aggregate outstanding principal amount of Existing Notes be validly tendered, and not validly withdrawn, prior to the Expiration Date (the “New Minimum Tender Condition”).  Therefore, the New Minimum Tender Condition to the consummation of the Exchange Offer has been satisfied.  The remainder of the conditions to the consummation of the Exchange Offer described in the Offering Memorandum (as defined below) remain unchanged.

As of 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on January 8, 2021 (the “Withdrawal Deadline“), the right to withdraw tenders of Existing Notes and related consents expired. Accordingly, Existing Notes tendered for exchange may not be validly withdrawn and consents may not be revoked, unless required by applicable law or regulation, or Peabody determines in the future in its sole discretion to permit withdrawal and revocation rights.

Concurrently with the Exchange Offer, Peabody has been soliciting consents (the “Consent Solicitation“) from holders of Existing Notes to certain proposed amendments to the indenture governing the Existing Notes (the “Existing Indenture“) to (i) eliminate substantially all of the restrictive covenants, certain events of default applicable to the Existing Notes and certain other provisions contained in the Existing Notes Indenture, and (ii) release the collateral securing the Existing Notes and eliminate certain other related provisions contained in the Existing Notes Indenture (the “Existing Indenture Amendments“). The Existing Indenture Amendments require the consent of holders of a majority in aggregate principal amount of the outstanding Existing Notes, with the exception of the amendments to release all of the collateral securing the Existing Notes, which require the consent of holders of 66-2/3% in aggregate principal amount of the outstanding Existing Notes.  As of the Withdrawal Deadline, Peabody had received consents sufficient to approve the Existing Indenture Amendments and on January 8, 2021, together with the parties to the Existing Indenture, entered into a supplemental indenture containing such Existing Indenture Amendments, which amendments will not become operative until completion of the Exchange Offer.  Following the Existing Indenture Amendments becoming operative, any Existing Notes that remain outstanding following the completion of the Exchange Offer will no longer be secured or have the benefit of the restrictive covenants, events of default and other provisions referred to above.

Peabody is making the Exchange Offer and Consent Solicitation pursuant to the terms of and subject to the conditions set forth in the confidential offering memorandum and consent solicitation statement dated December 24, 2020 (as supplemented by Supplement No. 1 dated December 31, 2020, the “Offering Memorandum“).

Any Eligible Holder who validly tenders (and does not validly withdraw) their Existing Notes pursuant to the Exchange Offer will be deemed to have delivered their related consents to the Existing Indenture Amendments by effecting such tender. Eligible Holders will not be permitted to validly tender their Existing Notes without delivering the related consents to the Existing Indenture Amendments. The settlement date is currently expected to be the third business day following the Expiration Date (the “Settlement Date“). The Exchange Offer is conditioned on the satisfaction, or the waiver by Peabody, of certain conditions described in the Offering Memorandum and related Letter of Transmittal.

The Offering Memorandum and other documents relating to the Exchange Offer and Consent Solicitation will only be distributed to Eligible Holders of Existing Notes who complete and return an eligibility form confirming that they are either (a) a person that is in the United States and is (i) a “Qualified Institutional Buyer” as that term is defined in Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act“), or (ii) an institutional “accredited investor” (within the meaning of Rule 501(a)(1), (2), (3) or (7) under the Securities Act), or (b) a person that is outside the “United States” and is (i) not a “U.S. person,” as those terms are defined in Rule 902 under the Securities Act, and (ii) a “non-U.S. qualified offeree” (as defined in the Offering Memorandum) (such holders, the “Eligible Holders“).  Holders of Existing Notes who desire to obtain and complete an eligibility form should either visit the website for this purpose at https://gbsc-usa.com/eligibility/peabody or call Global Bondholder Services Corporation, the Information Agent and Exchange Agent for the Exchange Offer and Consent Solicitation at (212) 430-3774 (for banks and brokers) or (866) 470-4500 (toll free).

On December 24, 2020, Peabody entered into a Transaction Support Agreement (the “Transaction Support Agreement“) with certain of its subsidiaries, each of the revolving lenders under Peabody’s credit agreement (the “Revolving Lenders“), the administrative agent under Peabody’s credit agreement, and certain holders, or investment advisors, sub-advisors, or managers of discretionary accounts that hold the Existing Notes (the “Consenting Noteholders“), pursuant to which the parties agreed, among other things and subject to the terms thereof, to effectuate the Exchange Offer described herein.  On December 31, 2020, the same parties entered into an Amended and Restated Transaction Support Agreement (the “Amended and Restated Transaction Support Agreement“), which clarifies certain provisions detailed in the term sheet and descriptions of notes attached as exhibits to the Transaction Support Agreement.

In connection with the Exchange Offer and within 15 days of the Settlement Date, Peabody has agreed to make an offer to purchase up to $22.5 million in aggregate accreted value of the New Peabody Notes at a purchase price equal to 80% of the accreted value of the New Peabody Notes, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to, but excluding, the applicable purchase date.

The New Notes have not been and will not be registered under the Securities Act, or any state securities laws.  Therefore, the New Notes may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration or an applicable exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act, and any applicable state securities laws.

The complete terms and conditions of the Exchange Offer are described in the Offering Memorandum.  Requests for documentation should be directed to Global Bondholder Services Corporation at (212) 430-3774 (for banks and brokers) or (866) 470-4500 (toll-free).

None of Peabody, its board of directors (or any committee thereof), the dealer manager, the information agent, the exchange agent, the trustee for the Existing Notes, the trustee for the New Peabody Notes, the trustee for the New Co-Issuer Notes or their respective affiliates is making any recommendation as to whether or not holders should exchange all or any portion of their Existing Notes in the Exchange Offer.

This announcement is not an offer to purchase or sell, a solicitation of an offer to purchase or sell or a solicitation of consents with respect to any securities.  The Exchange Offer is being made solely by the Offering Memorandum.  The Exchange Offer is not being made to holders of Existing Notes in any jurisdiction in which the making or acceptance thereof would not be in compliance with the securities, blue sky or other laws of such jurisdiction.

Peabody (NYSE: BTU) is a leading coal producer, serving customers in more than 25 countries on six continents. We provide essential products to fuel baseload electricity for emerging and developed countries and create the steel needed to build foundational infrastructure. Our commitment to sustainability underpins our activities today and helps to shape our strategy for the future. For further information, visit PeabodyEnergy.com.

Contact: 
Julie Gates 
314.342.4336   

Forward-looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the securities laws. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. They often include words or variation of words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates,” “projects,” “forecasts,” “targets,” “would,” “will,” “should,” “goal,” “could” or “may” or other similar expressions. Forward-looking statements provide management’s current expectations or predictions of future conditions, events or results. All statements that address operating performance, events, or developments that Peabody expects will occur in the future are forward-looking statements, including the Company’s ability to consummate the Exchange Offer and Consent Solicitation and the Company’s expectations regarding future liquidity, cash flows, mandatory debt payments and other expenditures. They may also include estimates of sales targets, cost savings, capital expenditures, other expense items, actions relating to strategic initiatives, demand for the company’s products, liquidity, capital structure, market share, industry volume, other financial items, descriptions of management’s plans or objectives for future operations and descriptions of assumptions underlying any of the above. All forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made and reflect Peabody’s good faith beliefs, assumptions and expectations, but they are not guarantees of future performance or events. Furthermore, Peabody disclaims any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, except as required by law. By their nature, forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those suggested by the forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause such differences include, but are not limited to, a variety of economic, competitive and regulatory factors, many of which are beyond Peabody’s control, including the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and factors that are described in Peabody’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2019, and other factors that Peabody may describe from time to time in other filings with the SEC. You may get such filings for free at Peabody’s website at www.peabodyenergy.com. You should understand that it is not possible to predict or identify all such factors and, consequently, you should not consider any such list to be a complete set of all potential risks or uncertainties. 

SOURCE Peabody

Related Links

www.peabodyenergy.com

Source: https://www.prnewswire.com:443/news-releases/peabody-announces-extended-early-tender-results-of-exchange-offer-and-consent-solicitation-further-extension-of-early-tender-date-and-waiver-and-satisfaction-of-minimum-tender-condition-301209605.html

Continue Reading
Amb Crypto2 days ago

Ethereum, Dogecoin, Maker Price Analysis: 15 January

Amb Crypto2 days ago

How are Chainlink’s whales propping up its price?

Amb Crypto2 days ago

NavCoin releases its new privacy protocol, one day after Binance adds NAV to its staking program

Blockchain2 days ago

Bitcoin Cloud Mining With Shamining: Is it Worth it? [Review]

Blockchain3 days ago

Litecoin Regains Footing After Being Knocked Back by Resistance

Blockchain3 days ago

Warp Finance Relaunches With ‘Additional Security’ from Chainlink

Cyber Security4 days ago

Hackers Leak Stolen Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Data

Venture Capital3 days ago

Ghana fintech startup secures $700k investment 

Cyber Security4 days ago

Sophisticated Hacks Against Android, Windows Reveal Zero-Day Trove

Blockchain4 days ago

Crypto Games May Substitute Regular Video Games in 2021

Automotive4 days ago

Nokian One All-Season Tire Has Life Expectancy Of 80,000 Miles

Cyber Security4 days ago

High-Severity Cisco Flaw Found in CMX Software For Retailers

Blockchain5 days ago

Amundi and BNY Mellon form strategic alliance

Cannabis4 days ago

The Cannabis Craze is Back in Gear (NASDAQ: SNDL) (NASDAQ: GRWG) (OTC US: MEDH) (OTC US: CRLBF)

NEWATLAS5 days ago

New insights into how COVID-19 can impact the brain and CNS

SPACS2 days ago

Affinity Gaming’s SPAC Gaming & Hospitality Acquisition files for a $150 million IPO

Blockchain4 days ago

Is Gold Still Worth Buying in the Bitcoin Age?

NEWATLAS5 days ago

Fiat Chrysler throws its weight behind Archer’s eVTOL project

Cyber Security4 days ago

CISOs Prep For COVID-19 Exposure Notification in the Workplace

Blockchain5 days ago

Schroders appoints Global Head of Infrastructure in Private Assets

Trending