Firering Strategic Minerals: From explorer to producer. 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.
Good find Moggy. Now if you could maybe deliver that information without feeling the need to satisfy your smugness … you might end up up being a nicer person…
All,
More proof ( for the benefit of Latics/Glen/Godders) that significant work is being done. The document also shows that the job vacancies that I have posted have been filled.
http://www.falklands.gov.fk/assembly/jdownloads/Executive%20Council/Executive%20Council%20Papers/2023/07%2025%20JULY%202023/105-23P.pdf
Page 9 of Annex 1
Mogger
FPSO LoI would seem a logical next step
Letter Of intent for Rigs or FID ?
I think most holders think FID is the next issue rather than the payout for OM. In fact it occurs to me that it may well not only be in the interest of ROI for RKH to be in financial distress but also in the interest of those funds sniffing around for the Award sale plus monthly interest.
So our focus of attention should surely be FID and how are Navitas are doing on the rig and FPSO front?
Mid 2026 for first oil ??
Which comes first, LoI for gigs or FID ?
Apologies for my ignorance , guys, but this board has deteriorated. I’m as much to blame as others but together we might help find out some info.
For example: I feel sure the design of the undersea drilling scenario makes a difference to the type of rig ie Jack-up, Semisubmersible or Development ?
Dear Chess
Wasn’t it you that a few days ago posted the need for a new site that would exclude the likes of BigRed Citizen and others because of the name calling and yet you appear to be the lowest common denominator at the moment
Get a line and stick to it, you started off a joke but there is no need to prove it
Boboil
Bigfred has never been banned. Unlike the ex army lady who has and is still banned. But when the truth is told you just complain. Funny as you act all big when you make your false promises. But when you are reminded of them you complain. Interesting too that you can’t even hold a debate over them you just make more false claims. Hardly the great man you claim to be.
Simples.
Whilst Glenrothes1969 in his recent reincarnation as Chessmaster1234 hones his latest insults against genuine posters - important real news is being released !
According to yesterday's Law Gazette:
'Shockwaves' as Supreme Court rules litigation funding deals unenforceable
"Litigation funders will have to redraft the terms of their agreements following a widely awaited ruling by the Supreme Court this morning. In PACCAR Inc & Ors v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors, four out of five justices ruled that such agreements fall within the statutory definition of damages-based agreements (DBAs). As they had been entered in to without satisfying conditions for DBAs, they were therefore unenforceable.
The ruling concerned collective proceedings brought against truck manufacturers following a European Commission decision that five companies had operated a cartel. The proceedings were supported by litigation funding agreements under which the funder’s remuneration is calculated by reference to a share of the damages ultimately recovered.
Alice Darling, senior associate at magic circle firm Clifford Chance, said the decision 'has rendered many funding agreements currently in place unenforceable'.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/shockwaves-as-supreme-court-rules-litigation-funding-deals-unenforceable/5116775.article
Also:
'The Supreme Court finds that litigation funding agreements (“LFAs”) are damages-based agreements (“DBAs”) within the meaning of the legislation regulating DBAs'
https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2023/07/the-supreme-court-finds-that-litigation-funding-ag
And:
Uncertainty for funders after UK Supreme Court ruling
The UK Supreme Court has raised doubts about the enforceability of many litigation funding agreements in England and Wales, as funders look set to review the terms of their agreements.
https://rb.gy/80qbb
Early days as Harbour Litigation is a US listed company and if the Award is pursued through the US Courts - none of this may apply. However, as the UK is a global leader in the world of arbitration I doubt that the Supreme Court ruling will have no impact in other jurisdictions.
I can see no downside for RKH and there just might be the opportunity to negotiate a more favourable new contract if this is required. As currently RKH may end up paying Harbour as much as €40m on a €200m payout - there is plenty of scope for Harbour to 'make a gesture'.
Interesting times.
DEM
Typical one-upmanship by Schitizen.
A nicer person may well have replied:
‘and the info is also available on this link’.
No snide comments but simple yet polite. Something Schitizen struggles with.
No need for Chat GPT, just search ICSID then enter Rockhopper on their site search gets yo to
https://icsid.worldbank.org/cases/case-database/case-detail?CaseNo=ARB/17/14
Scroll down to the bottom.
Quite transparent really
Sell the Award at a deep discount or settle for lower with Italy?
Donalb
The source is ChatGBT. Should have put that as the header of my email.
Hi Paul, I’d like to think they would put it to bed quite promptly after the hearing as they would have had all the info, there is no further course of action after that, what possible reason would they have to keep the outcome secret for a further 6-12months. If they did, ROI could accuse the tribunal of not concluding the annulment thus racking up €1.5m per month in further interest against them! I wouldn’t put it past them even if they have lost.
My feeling is they will give the result before the end of March to draw a line under things, then RKH, Harbour permitting sell the award, all or part, even keeping only 30% would be over €90m by the time interest is taken into account, plus the buyer will keep racking it up €1.5m per month. Nice little earner!
LTT
It’s all part of the process but the final hearing is scheduled for January next year. After that it’s probably anything from 1-12 months for an outcome.
Thanks mswartz for the description. Could you post a link for your source ?
LTT, your thinking sounds correct to me, maybe this could be moving much faster than estimated.
GLA, DAB
So am I right in thinking this has nothing to do with the STAY, which we should hear about that in the coming weeks/months, this is about RKH's lawyers opposing the annulment request in preparation for the tribunals decision in early January 2024.
LTT
Understood Chessmaster but you haven’t taken into account the RKH BoD greed ?
Great Post, i am happy with that, we got them bang to rights as they say ,
Patients is a virtue,
Hold .
"A counter-memorial on annulment is a legal document filed in response to a memorial seeking to annul an arbitral award. In international arbitration, parties may have the option to challenge an arbitral award through annulment proceedings. The party seeking to annul the award submits a memorial outlining their arguments for annulment, and the other party responds with a counter-memorial defending the validity and enforceability of the award. The counter-memorial aims to present counterarguments and evidence to oppose the annulment request."
July 25, 2023 - Rockhopper Italia S.p.A., Rockhopper Mediterranean Ltd, and Rockhopper Exploration Plc file a counter-memorial on annulment.
Ovets - I pretty much agree, some smart Israeli money is going to do very well here. The west, with its illogical co2 plans are only going to push us to £150-$200 Oil. About now would be a great time to get SL rolling.
OM, I feel Italy have done a great job of wanting RKH to go bust 1st and really have lead a merry dance so far, I expect this to continue with ever diminishing returns for them though. I think FID is the next issue rather than the payout.
"So Ovets you agree with me No FID , NO OM monies next year?"
There is no reason to conflate these issues.
Assuming that the SL project continues as it is, FID will definitely happen in 2024 and possibly even before the end of 2023, although that's being optimistic.
There is currently no evidence that Navitas might change their mind and Israel has even more reason than most to want this to go ahead. They couldn't give a flying fig about climate change, by comparison with their long-term energy needs.
As for OM money, that's a totally different and unrelated matter, so should not be used to confuse people, except that RKH might decide to sell part, or all of the award.
I can see this saga going on for some time, but with every step in the right direction (e.g. lifting of the enforcement stay), the award becomes increasingly attractive to potential buyers, with a corresponding reduction in the sale discount. RKH might prefer to sell the award in order to save having to raise funds. I'm pretty sure Sam would prefer to receive the full award and Harbour may have something to say about it being sold at a discount.
So I think your black & white view is unduly pessimistic and like everything in this World, shades of grey are more realistic.
I'd add one more thing: Putin's invasion of Ukraine came as a real surprise to most observers and certainly increased the chances for SL.
Who's to say that something else might happen, which will affect the outcome of all this, either positively, or negatively.
To make statements like "So Ovets you agree with me No FID , NO OM monies next year?" in this crazy World is in itself crazy.
A point I've raised before - will RKH's lawyers be happy with selling the award at a discount - they too will get less than they anticipated.
Will the Board put a Special Resolution to Vote if they intend to sell the Award to a third party?