Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Rare early pic of Private Equity and Hedge Fund Managers dividing up the rich assets of a small oil explorer, recently acquired in exchange for some coloured beads.
https://rb.gy/etxue
Enjoy the Bank Holiday
DEM
ps Man with mandolin in foreground is almost certainly Glenrothes, having lost his shirt in a previous deal.
I'm sure there are some other familiar posters in the picture !
Agreed - may just be a glitch on the website.
I'll try and check it out - there may be something in the company monthly reports.
Back to Google Translate.
DEM
https://www.navitaspet.com/chanan-wolf-sea-lion-project-manager/
DEM
Dear Paul
Sounds great idea - one question. I seem to have acquired one or two extra monikers over the years - errr actually 38 at the last count. They would all like to join as well - hope this is OK !
DEM
Changed email address.
This 'one time' address should work.
deusexmachina372@gmail.com
To validate you are TopDrive name a couple of the folk from Humdinga.
Good to hear from you !
DEM
"Calm down. Jon Wood will not allow a cheeky takeover".
Unless of course the takeover was by Jon Wood / Aedos.
DEM
Paul Drayton and others have expressed concern re funding the legal costs of fighting the Annulment and enforcing payment. In fact this matter was anticipated and sorted by RKH several months ago. See RKH RNS dated 31 Oct 2022:
"The third-party funding agreement does not cover any costs arising past the date of the Award (23 August 2022). Having anticipated Italy might attempt to annul the Award, Rockhoppper has a non-binding offer in place to fund both fighting the annulment and enforcing the Award if required. The Company will now consider this along with other funding possibilities. A separate success fee of approximately £3 million is due to the Company's legal representatives on establishing liability and an award requiring Italy to pay over €25 million in damages. This amount is not covered by either funding agreement. Given Italy's request for annulment, the Company is in productive discussions with its legal representatives as regards to this payment."
More recently, in the RNS of 23 March 2023 SM commented:
"Rockhopper is currently paying all legal costs associated with the annulment".
I have no inside track on this but I will be very surprised if the total legal bill from King & Spalding relating to the Annulment come to more than £1m - £2m, a sum easily met from the current balance - not forgetting the additional monies later in the year when the Warrants are converted. If required, K&S seem happy to cover all future costs themselves ('the non-binding offer') - no doubt in return for an enhanced payment when the Award monies are received.
So, No problem funding legal costs, IMHO
DEM
April 24, 2023
"The ad hoc Committee issues a decision on concerning the continuation of the stay of enforcement of the award".
https://icsid.worldbank.org/cases/case-database/case-detail?CaseNo=ARB/17/14
I assume that an RNS from RKH will be released very shortly.
DEM
ps
With the company AGM now only eight weeks away, the creation by Glenrothes1869 of yet another family of Aliases is timely. However, I fail to be persuaded that this leopard has changed it's spots, nor abandoned its hare-brained schemes to gain control of RKH on behalf of whoever the Pied Piper is this time. Once a crackpot, always a ......... !
"is there a reddit thread or similar set up for this - would be handy to be able to go back on different topics as its very difficult to revisit old discussions on this platform" p777
As this is a topic which clearly concerns you - I am surprised that you have ignored AlmaCogan's helpful suggestion to click on the Threads tab.
Last year another poster (kr2009) - made a very similar suggestion in an attempt to switch posters to Telegram Group. At the risk of repeating myself - I will repeat myself - as your unspoken Agendas appear most similar.
kr2009
"No, there is no Telegram Group AFAIK - why are you so anxious to take discussion off-line. This is the third or fourth time you have tried to switch LSE posters to a Telegram discussion. This is not Russia - open discussion IMHO is both healthy and beneficial to all parties.
Couldn't help but notice that your LSE BB 'Birth Date' was 16th July 2020 - a memorable 24 hour period when over 20 posters registered*. By an odd coincidence most seem to want to sack Sam Moody, the Board, hold an EGM, vote against Clause 8, share their inside leg measurement & other confidential private data with GlenMcGonagall1879 and generally rubbish the company.
Once again, I am reminded of how closely your posts ape those of both in style and content of he who was deleted and expunged from the Boards a few months back.
A friendly reminder that this is a Bulletin Board for Private Investors – not for ‘Professionals’.
But I think you will know this already from our earlier encounters.
https://www.lse.co.uk/terms-and-conditions.html "
DEM
Thanks PD for both links - first time I've seen what the Execution of an ICSID Award might look like.
Think you have provided the perfect excuse for me not to mow the wilderness once known as our lawn!
DEM
The "Latest Development" detailed on the ICSID web site is:
"March 6, 2023 - The ad hoc Committee holds a hearing on the stay of enforcement of the award".
So we know that at least one party - presumably RKH - has requested that the ICSID Committee issue its ruling on the continuation of the provisional stay within 30 days. If there had been no request - there would not have needed to be a hearing. If the ad hoc Committee determines not to continue the stay, the stay shall automatically be terminated.
The 30 day time frame for the decision on whether the Stay remains in place - clearly relates to Working Days.
See Regulation 69 para 2 on page 69 in the 'Administrative and Financial Regulations' section of the ICSID CONVENTION, REGULATIONS AND RULES (2006)
https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/ICSID%20Convention%20English.pdf
Chapter VI
Special Provisions Relating to Proceedings
Regulation 29
Time Limits
(1) All time limits, specified in the Convention or the Rules or fixed by a Commission, Tribunal, Committee or the Secretary-General, shall be computed from the date on which the limit is announced in the presence of the parties or their representatives or on which the Secretary-General dispatches the pertinent notification or instrument (which date shall be marked on it). The day of such announcement or dispatch shall be excluded from the calculation.
(2) A time limit shall be satisfied if a notification or instrument dispatched by a party is delivered at the seat of the Centre, or to the Secretary of the competent Commission, Tribunal or Committee that is meeting away from the seat of the Centre, before the close of business on the indicated date or, if that day is a Saturday, a Sunday, a public holiday observed at the place of delivery or a day on which for any reason regular mail delivery is restricted at the place of delivery, then before the close of business on the next subsequent day on which regular mail service is available.
The 30th working day after March 6th - ignoring Saturdays, Sundays and the three day Easter holiday will be April 19th. So expect to hear on Thursday the 20th April.
DEM
"I have never traded any shares at all. When I buy I hold them and I started years ago with FOGL and still only have less than 30k shares in RKH". (Blinker)
Clicking on your 'trading name' - to the left of the post I see that you were a keen supporter of Glen's 'Vote him out' campaign in 2021 and at the end of your post on 18-04-2021 claim to hold 240,000 shares. So, assuming you neither trade nor sell the shares you hold -
Did you only have 30,000 shares in 2021, or
Do you actually have 240,000 shares today, or
Are both statements false ?
DEM
New PP Slide Deck just been posted on RKH web site.
https://rockhopperexploration.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/RKH-Corporate-Update-April-2023.pdf
DEM
Mogger
A quick browse through Leo_IX posts has this link from August 2022:
https://www.energychartertreaty.org/cases/list-of-cases/
Assume this is where he compiled the data from ?
I have not attempted any analysis.
DEM
"Rockhopper themselves admitted last year that they now owe money to the lawyers for a successful arbitration outcome, and they do have limited funds despite the placing last year". (PD)
With respect, I don't think this is strictly correct.
1. All legal fees incurred by King & Spalding etc up to the Award, have been paid on a regular basis by Harbour Litigation. Harbour get their share of the Award monies as and when do Rockhopper. To repeat, all legal bills have been paid by Harbour as they fell due. This is how Arbitration Litigation works and is why Harbour get 20% of the gross amount.
2. In the RNS dated 31-10-2022:
"The third-party funding agreement does not cover any costs arising past the date of the Award (23 August 2022). Having anticipated Italy might attempt to annul the Award, Rockhoppper has a non-binding offer in place to fund both fighting the annulment and enforcing the Award if required. The Company will now consider this along with other funding possibilities. A separate success fee of approximately £3 million is due to the Company's legal representatives on establishing liability and an award requiring Italy to pay over €25 million in damages. This amount is not covered by either funding agreement. Given Italy's request for annulment, the Company is in productive discussions with its legal representatives as regards to this payment".
So, almost certainly sorted !
3. In any case, in the 'Blocklisting Interim Update' RNS of 8th Feb had 56,430,551 Ordinary Shares not yet issued out of the original 60,917,237 under the Warrants Scheme. At 9p each that equals £5.1m which RKH should receive by the year end. Not a Kings Ransom but more than enough to pay the K&S bill for the 18m period post Award (24-08-2022) not covered by Harbour Litigation. (Just in case Rockhopper lose the Annulment and get Zilch out of OM - all very unlikely).
4. If necessary, part of the Award might be monetised at a discounted rate eg a sale of say 10% of the Award at a 50% discount would raise £10-12m. RKH was approached by more than one interested party at the time but I'm fairly sure Sam would much prefer to avoid this option if possible.
5. Finally, great RNS yesterday - rather like Budgets, I think certain elements came as no surprise. Nothing not to like and Onward and Upward with both Ombrina Mare and Sea Lion.
Just to clarify one point. The confirmed Phase 1 total capex cost of $1.8bn will mean that Rockhopper's contribution will eventually total $54m. However, on the projected Pre first oil Capex of $1.3bn, Rockhopper will only need $36m. Or, in real money £29.5m pounds sterling - an amount easily covered, I think, by whatever is the eventual OM Award.
DEM
"has anyone done a dcf on ombrina mare to see what the total could have been?" (p777)
See pages 87 to 100 in the ICSID Award doc for a detailed description of the various potential ways of calculating the value of Ombrina Mare. Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) was actually Rockhopper's preferred method. Not too surprising when you see the calculations below !
"218. The DCF method values an investment based on the stream of future cash flows that the investment is expected to generate, “discounted” to a present value to account for the time value of money and the riskiness of the forecast cash flows. It is the Claimants’ preferred approach.
219. The Claimants (RKH) primarily advance a claim of EUR 275 million as the value of the loss of their investment, with at least EUR 6,675,391 in decommissioning costs, and interest on both figures at 9%, compounded annually. The interest – calculated to 4 February 2019 – would add another approx. EUR 83.8 million, bringing the total relief requested to approximately EUR 365.4 million."
The additional interest which would have been earned 2019-2023 would have added another c£60m = EUR 425m total.
If RoI challenge the basis of calculation, I do hope the ad hoc committee switches to the DCF methodology.
DEM
"In practice, where a partial annulment is ordered (which is more common than full annulment), the tribunal’s damages analysis and jurisdictional findings are more likely to be annulled than findings on liability"
Source - page 5 : EMPIRICAL STUDY: ANNULMENT IN ICSID ARBITRATION by Baker Botts
https://www.biicl.org/documents/10899_annulment-in-icsid-arbitration190821.pdf
So, if "the tribunal’s damages analysis" is the Achilles Heel of ICSID judgements, most likely to be to be challenged to obtain a Partial Annulment - it seemed a good idea to re-read Professor Pierre Dupuy's minority report. Fortunately - thanks to Mogger - we have a copy of this six page document buried in the 223 page full Award.
The following quote from the last para of Prof. Dupuy's minority report (INDIVIDUAL OPINION BY PROFESSOR PIERRE-MARIE DUPUY) suggests that RKH might have been awarded far more, if the Tribunal had not opted to use a "rather modest value of the Ombrina Mare field at the time of Rockhopper's investment in 2014, contrary to the proposals put forward in this respect by the Claimant which were in my view inequitable".
"6. With regard to the calculation of the compensation due by Italy to Rockhopper, one could certainly have had some doubts about the appropriateness of using the DCF method insofar as the exploitation of the Ombrina Mare deposit has never begun. There are, however, several precedents in the same direction and the use of the DCF method is still considered, including in the field of oil exploitation, as the reference method. What was most important, however, and allowed me to agree with the solution proposed in the award in terms of compensation was that the baseline used in the award for the calculation of compensation was the actual rather modest value of the Ombrina Mare field at the time of Rockhopper's investment in 2014, contrary to the proposals put forward in this respect by the Claimant which were in my view inequitable".
I find this last para very reassuring. If the RoI's own nominated Arbiter considered the baseline valuation of the Ombrina Mare field to be "rather modest" - it seems very unlikely that the ad hoc Committee will disagree.
I have also attached the link to the full version of the Award. Note that the Award comprises several different documents - each with its own pagination. The 'Individual Opinion' is about 60% of the way through the Award - you will need to slowly scroll through to find it or better still, use the search facility ('Find on page') in the Settings menu ('three dots' icon).
https://files.lbr.cloud/public/2022-11/2022%2008%2023%20%20Rockhopper%20v%20Italy%20-%20Award.pdf?VersionId=jCPV978neEZ9LYnhwgTrt5yBQwzf0NEQ
DEM
"thanks DEM - any findings on length of process across the cases?" (p777)
Sorry, the Baker Botts report has little to say on the 'length of process'. Only reference is on page 16:
"THE LENGTH OF ANNULMENT PROCEEDINGS VARIES
The length of ICSID annulment proceedings varies greatly. The applications in Astaldi v Honduras, Burlington Resources v Ecuador, Joy Mining v Egypt, KT Asia Investment Group v Kazakhstan and Levy v Peru38 were all resolved in less than a year. By contrast, the longest proceedings were in LG&E v Argentina39 which lasted approximately six and a half years".
Judging by the speed with which the ad hoc Committee is rattling through the various stages (eg just over 4 months from Commencement to Hearing - compared to 21 months for the Original Proceeding to reach the same point) - I think that Sam's guesstimate of 12 to 24m may be about right.
DEM
Thanks Mogger for posting up the link to the Baker Botts Analysis from 2021. The last time this doc surfaced I did a short one page summary for my own reference - thought it might be of general interest to anyone lacking the time or inclination to plough through the 60+ pages of the full Analysis.
KEY FINDINGS:
Possible grounds for Annulment:
a. The Tribunal was not properly constituted;
b. The Tribunal manifestly exceeded its powers;
c. There was corruption on the part of a member of the Tribunal;
d. There was a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure;
e. The award failed to state the reasons on which it was based.
Three most commonly invoked grounds are b, d & e.
Out of 355 ICSID Awards up to 2021, 156 (44%) are/were subject to Annulment proceedings.
Of those 156 cases, 121 are completed and the remainder pending.
Of the 121 completed cases, 89 decisions were rendered by the ad hoc committee and 32 proceedings were discontinued (ie claimants on ‘fishing’ expeditions).
Of the 89 cases where a decision was rendered, ad hoc committees upheld the underlying award on 70 occasions. Nineteen awards were annulled in part or in full.
Of these 19 cases:
6 ICSID awards have been annulled in full (1.7% of total)
13 ICSID awards have been annulled in part (3.7% of total)
In partial annulments, the tribunal’s damages analyses and jurisdictional findings are more likely to be annulled than findings on liability.
Source:
EMPIRICAL STUDY: ANNULMENT IN ICSID ARBITRATION by Baker Botts
https://www.biicl.org/documents/10899_annulment-in-icsid-arbitration190821.pdf
DEM
Q. "DeusExMachina, I was wondering how you could make such a big mistake there". (buzzthomas)
A. Very easily !
I could claim that I had heard of the Shenandoah National Park and the river - both in Virginia, USA - and assumed (wrongly) that the oil field was in the same area, but I didn't. It was just a careless error.
DEM