Berkeley Energia Files $1.25bn Claim Against Spain, Reports Progress on Critical Minerals

Half-year review: arbitration escalates, critical minerals progress, and a solid cash buffer

Berkeley Energia’s interim report is a tale of two tracks: a heavyweight legal push to unlock the Salamanca uranium project, and steady progress on a new critical minerals target at Conchas. The headline is clear: the company has filed a Memorial of Claim seeking US$1.25 billion in compensation from Spain under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). Alongside that, lithium and rubidium test work at Conchas delivered encouraging recoveries. The balance sheet remains clean with A$68.4 million in cash and no debt.

Here’s what I think matters for investors, and why.

ICSID arbitration: US$1.25 billion claim under the Energy Charter Treaty

Berkeley’s wholly owned subsidiary, Berkeley Exploration Limited, has formally lodged its Memorial of Claim at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in Washington, D.C. The company alleges Spain’s actions against the Salamanca Project breached multiple provisions of the ECT, and is seeking compensation “in the order of” US$1,250,000,000.

• What’s ICSID? It’s the World Bank’s forum for resolving investor-state disputes.
• What’s the ECT? A multilateral treaty that protects energy investments and provides for arbitration.
• Timeline: Spain has until July 2026 to respond to the claim, or until October 2026 to file a jurisdictional challenge if ordered by the tribunal.

My take: this is a high-stakes, binary catalyst. Success could be transformational. Failure would leave Berkeley reliant on permitting progress or other business development. Importantly, the company remains “open to a constructive dialogue” with Spain, keeping the door ajar for an amicable resolution.

Salamanca uranium project: resource base and permitting backdrop

Salamanca sits in a historic uranium mining district in western Spain and carries a Mineral Resource of 89.3 Mlb U3O8 (Measured 12.3 Mlb, Indicated 47.5 Mlb, Inferred 29.6 Mlb). A 2016 Definitive Feasibility Study suggested low-cost potential. However, the key bottleneck remains permitting, specifically the Authorisation for Construction as a radioactive facility (NSC II), plus the Urbanism Licence (UL) and the Authorisation of Exceptional Use of Land (AEUL).

In 2021, MITECO rejected NSC II following an unfavourable report from the Nuclear Safety Council. Berkeley disputes the basis of that assessment and has pursued administrative and legal routes. Some previous approvals (including UL and AEUL) were annulled by the TSJ in 2023; appeals to the Supreme Court have been withdrawn to preserve the company’s arbitration rights. Bottom line: Salamanca’s development still depends on the grant or re-grant of key permits.

Spanish nuclear power context: why Salamanca could still matter

There’s a live policy debate in Spain. The owners of the Almaraz plant requested an operating life extension beyond 2027 to June 2030, with regulatory review under way. Nuclear generated about 20% of Spain’s net electricity in 2024 and was the second-largest source, according to ForoNuclear. The 2025 Iberian blackout has sharpened focus on grid stability, where nuclear’s inertia is often cited. If Spain’s stance on nuclear softens, Salamanca’s strategic relevance could increase – but that is not yet policy.

Conchas critical minerals: lithium and rubidium show promising metallurgy

Berkeley is advancing a parallel exploration initiative at the Conchas Project in western Salamanca province. Drilling in 2024 intersected shallow, thick zones of lithium (Li) and rubidium (Rb) within muscovitic leucogranite. Examples include:

• 61m at 0.50% Li2O and 0.21% Rb2O from surface (CCR0012)
• 56m at 0.48% Li2O and 0.21% Rb2O from surface (CCR0025)
• 14m at 0.95% Li2O and 0.39% Rb2O from 40m (CCR0006)

Metallurgical test work results

• Flotation (at 150µm grind): 77.5% overall Li recovery at 2.23% Li2O; 62.7% overall Rb recovery at 0.79% Rb; 78.5% Cs recovery at 661ppm Cs.
• Magnetic separation (coarse fraction -300µm +150µm): 76.6% of Li and 57.7% of Rb reported to magnetic concentrates (grading 2.34% Li2O and 0.73% Rb).

Why it matters: these are early-stage numbers, but they indicate a potentially viable beneficiation route – coarse magnetic separation followed by flotation of fines. Next steps include 3D geological modelling as a precursor to a resource estimate and a second phase of metallurgy to optimise flotation and magnetic parameters.

Rubidium is flagged as a strategic material in the US and Japan, used across defence, aerospace, communications, medical and renewable applications. It’s a niche market, but high value per unit if processing and offtake can be lined up.

Financials: cash, no debt, and the moving parts behind the loss

Berkeley ended the half with a robust cash balance and negative earnings driven by arbitration costs and currency movements.

Key numbers (half year to 31 Dec 2025)	Reported
Cash and cash equivalents	A$68.4 million
Debt	Nil
Net assets	A$76.1 million
Net (loss)/profit	(A$3.446 million)
Interest income	A$1.204 million
Arbitration expenses	A$2.494 million
Foreign exchange (loss)/gain	(A$1.487 million)
Operating cash outflow	A$3.706 million
Total cash decrease (ex-FX)	A$3.709 million
Shares on issue	446.3 million

The FX loss reflects a stronger AUD versus the USD on the Group’s US$45 million cash holding; interest income dipped as deposit rates slipped from 3.6% to 3.1%. Notably, a A$1.662 million non-cash share-based payment reversal cushioned the P&L after 7.6 million options were deemed unlikely to vest. There were no dividends.

Contingent fees linked to outcomes: worth noting

• Legal success fee: capped at 3% of any award, up to €15 million if the award is US$1.25 billion. Payable only on success.
• Permitting advisory success fee: €4.5 million, payable only if all permits for construction are granted.
• Management Incentive Program: 6% of any damages proceeds distributed to participants, and US$10 million if a construction licence is granted.

These are contingent – nothing is payable unless the conditions are met – but they’re useful for investors modelling potential outcomes.

Risks, hurdles, and the near-term watchlist

• Permitting remains the central risk. Salamanca cannot be built without NSC II, UL and AEUL being granted or re-granted. Several prior approvals have been annulled.
• Arbitration is inherently uncertain. Spain may challenge jurisdiction; timelines extend into H2 2026 for first responses.
• Spain’s 2021 law restricts new proceedings on radioactive minerals, though existing rights remain. This adds procedural complexity.
• Commodity price exposure: uranium price volatility is outside Berkeley’s control.

What to watch next

• Any movement by Spain – either responses at ICSID or signs of a negotiated path to permitting.
• Conchas: completion of 3D model, maiden resource work, and the second phase metallurgy.
• Permitting reviews for the Oliva and La Majada areas and the outcome of the Conchas Portugal application (219 km²).

Josh’s view: balanced risk-reward with multiple shots on goal

This update reinforces the two-pronged strategy. On one side, a sizeable ECT claim that could crystallise value or nudge a settlement. On the other, genuine technical progress at Conchas that could open a new critical minerals avenue. The company’s A$68.4 million cash pile and lack of debt provide time to pursue both.

Positives: cash strength, no debt, arbitration now fully in motion, and credible metallurgical recoveries at Conchas. Negatives: permitting at Salamanca remains unresolved and legal timelines are long. If you can tolerate jurisdictional and legal risk, Berkeley offers clear catalysts in 2026 – but position sizing and patience are essential.

As ever, I’ll be watching the ICSID docket and the Conchas metallurgy closely. If Berkeley lands either permitting traction or a positive arbitration trajectory, the narrative shifts quickly. Until then, it’s about staying funded and steadily de-risking the portfolio – which, for now, they’re doing.