Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
There is as far as I know, zero evidence that ICSID judgements are influenced by eco lunatics.
Comparing apples and pears and suggesting bananas is not particularly useful either.
Is an OM award priced In, yes somewhat in that a loss could see the SP half, but upside is not priced in as it depends on the size of the award. Even a $30m net to Rock could see the SP double. It's all a big finger in the air prediction.
Cyan
You make your point extremely well and I do not disagree with much of what you say in terms of the detail. However, it doesn't negate my basic argument.
The judgement against RDS (which I own) was absurd because how did the judges conclude that a cut of 45% relative to 2030 levels was required rather than RDS's studied and stated targets? What qualification or knowledge did the judges have to justify the 45% figure? Ergo, my point. There is a risk (and some evidence) that judges will start operating out of their competency and jurisdiction because they want to become the rock stars of the net zero age. RDS will appeal and I am sure it will win. However, that process will take years, which won't bother a company the size of RDS. However, if RKH loses what happens next? Even if the decision is illogical and bizarre (as the RDS one was), there is no right of appeal.
Of course, we have to wait and see but I think the company should not be betting its future on a sizeable payout as many shareholders now appear to be doing.
All IMHO DYOR
Happy
Good morning happyInvestor100
The judges in our case have to properly apply the law applicable at the time in our case. They also have to present the reasoning followed to reach any award.
Your link form 1st June is about emission targets and Dutch law;
"The court found that Shell’s policy is inadequate to meet the requisite standard of care under Dutch law, and ordered that the carbon emissions of the Shell group’s global activities be reduced by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019."
I do not see a read across for our OM arbitration case. The panel can not simply retrospectively make up new international law to reject our claim.
I do agree that a lot of our shares price is supported by the belief we will win a decent award and that a failure to win will very badly impact the share price.
"The arbitration panel won’t be swayed by eco warriors or the trend toward net zero."
Really? I refer to the patently ridiculous court ruling against RDS at the Hague to illustrate how judges ARE being swayed: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/01/shell-historic-loss-hague-fight-big-oil
The idea that in the current climate (excuse the pun!) a tribunal is going to make a substantial award to a tiny fossil fuel company compensating it for profits it MAY have made is pie-in-the-sky in my opinion. A significant award is priced in now so if it doesn't happen, the SP will tank. I can't see that that risk is worth taking.
All IMHO DYOR
Best
Happy
The moronic COP 26 summit, to agree to beggar the west whilst China and Russia
continue on churning out CO2,
continuing to undercut the west with cheaper power,
and cheaper exploited labour,
will have no impact on when ICSID announce their decision.
What is a concern, growing daily, is why ICSID have yet to throw out the latest Italian/EU bu*LL****e attempt to avoid the consequences of inviting $millions of investment money to Italy,
only to then change the playing field and saying feck off suckers!
Much hope you are correct , although if everything was going according to Lawyers this should have been finalised in September IMHO .
The arbitration panel won’t be swayed by eco warriors or the trend toward net zero.
They are effectively lawyers who will seek to make a judgement based on the case and an award based upon costs and lost profits. End of story.
It is going to be interesting to see what oil price they use when working out lost profits though.
Would guess judgement dropped during Cop26 to give Italy Maximum Victim status and Heap pressure on RKH to give $ away to Greens .
Just a Thought .