Who actually went to the AGM, page-4

Thanks Kiwigats, you have made some interesting observations.

The one I find most interesting is the reaffirmation of the CWE/EDF alliance.

Many on this site have completely dismissed any chance that our company should have anything to do with them ever again. It is understandable that people would not want a repeat of the Reunion Island debacle. If Carnegie had been in control and the same disaster had occurred, we would not be here now discussing PWEP or any other project. CWE would be dead in the water so to speak.

The fortunate bit is, that EDF and DCNS were totally responsible for the project. Both were big enough to have survived the aftermath of the disaster without much difficulty. We on the other hand, would very likely have been the next Oceanlinx if it were us that was responsible.

Now that MO has reminded us that EDF are still around, it is timely that we reflect on our agreement with them, My understanding of the attached MOU is that we are legally bound to have EDF support for any Northern Hemisphere projects. Whether that means that we have to have them as a partner or not, I am not sure. I suspect it means we would have to at least have their permission before going ahead with a project. So whether we like it or not, we are in this together.

In regard to Reunion Island, the deal offered there appears to be a very good one. The French government appear to be very interested in getting a project going. It is offering a feed in tariff, as well as 75% of the cost of building the project in grant money. IMO that is the best offer on the table (that we are aware of), anywhere in the world.

HC members not familiar with the MOU should take the time to read it.

http://www.carnegiewave.com/index.php?url=/ceto/milestones/EDF EN DCNS MoU